•H-'i- 


^m 


UC-NRLF 


III  III  mill  Hill  III! 


$B    14    701 


FOUNDED    BY    JOHN    D.    ROCKEFELLER 


EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH 
IN  ANTIQUITY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND 

LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(uiiPARTMRNT     OF     GREEK) 


BY 
HAZEL  LOUISE  BR(  W  > 


MENASHA,  WIS. 

THE  COLLEGIATE  PRESS 

GEORGE   P.ANTA   PUBLISHING  CO. 

1914 


EXCHANGE 


^5" 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/extemporaryspeecOObrowrich 


FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH 
IN  ANTIQUITY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND 

LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY   FOR  THE   DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department    of    greek) 


BY 
HAZEL  LOUISE  BROWN 


•  •  •,  « •   » 

»  ,». •»  •• 

»      »  •        •    »  •        • 


MENASHA,  WIS. 

THE  COLLEGIATE  PRESS 

GEORGE   BANTA   PUBLISHING  CO. 

1914 


G> 


PREFACE 

While  the  object  of  the  following  pages  has  been  to  consider  the 
part  played  by  extemporary  speech  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  the 
orators  and  rhetoricians  of  ancient  times,  it  has  been  thought  best  to 
set  the  discussion  in  the  framework  of  a  running  commentary  on 
Greek  oratory  in  general,  in  order  to  give  to  the  paper  some  sort  of 
unity.  In  case  of  many  of  the  orators  there  are  only  a  few  isolated 
references  to  their  practice  as  speakers,  and  of  some  of  them  we  can 
only  say,  after  considering  the  evidence,  what  in  each  case  was  the 
probable  method  followed.  Many  topics  which  might  have  been 
investigated  in  connection  with  the  main  subject,  necessarily  have 
been  left  untouched,  since  a  discussion  of  them  would  carry  the 
treatment  far  beyond  the  confines  of  a  single  paper.  An  attempt 
has  been  made  to  bring  the  discussion  into  relation  to  modern  theory 
and  practice  by  means  of  the  parallels  in  the  foot-notes,  though  of 
necessity  these  have  been  few  and  short. 

In  the  notes  I  have  endeavored  to  give  credit  to  all  articles  from 
which  I  consciously  received  any  suggestion;  if  I  have  in  any  case 
failed  to  do  so,  the  oversight  has  been  unintentional.  Particular 
mention  must  be  made  of  Blass's  Attische  Beredsamkeit,  which  has 
proved  invaluable. 

In  conclusion  I  wish  to  express  my  gratitude  to  Dr.  Paul  Shorey 
of  the  University  of  Chicago,  at  whose  suggestion  the  paper  was 
written,  and  to  whose  comments  and  criticism  any  value  it  may  have 
is  largely  due. 

Hazel  Louise  Brown. 

Chicago,  19 14 


306169 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Preface. 

Chapter  I.  The  Place  of  Extemporary  Speech  in  the  Theory 
OF  Rhetoric. 

(i).  Among  the  Greeks : 

In  Homeric  times  7 

Empedocles    7 

Corax  and  Tisias   8 

Gorgias    11 

Thrasymachus    13 

Antiphon 13 

Lysias    16 

Plato's  Phaedrus  18 

Isocrates   22 

Alcidamas 27 

Aristotle's  Rhetoric   42 

Anaximenes   45 

Plutarch    47 

Hermogenes   '. 49 

Gregory  of  Corinth   50 

Aristides  51 

Longinus     51 

Theon    : 53 

Alexander 53 

Tiberius    53 

(2).  Among  the  Romans: 

Cicero    54 

Horace    58 

Quintilian   58 

Tacitus    66 

Chapter  H.  The  Place  of  Extemporary  Speech  in  the  Prac- 
tice OF  THE  Orators. 

(i).  Among  THE  Greeks: 

Pre-Homeric  orators   70 


Homer ^2 

Corax  and  Tisias 75 

Cimon y"j 

Themistocles ^7 

Pericles 79 

Alcibiades 88 

The  Sophists 95 

The  Attic  Orators 102 

Repetitions  139 

Minor  orators 146 

(2).  Among  THE  Romans  : 

Pre-Ciceronian  orators    147 

Cicero  and  his  contemporaries 165 

The  Emperors 169 

Minor  Speakers 172 

(3).  The  Later  Sophists   i75 

Index  181 


I.  THE  PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THE 
THEORY  OF  RHETORIC 

It  is  not  until  comparatively  late  in  the  history  of  Greek  liter- 
ature that  we  find  any  formal  theoretical  treatment  of  extemporary 
speech,  and  then  only  in  the  form  of  polemic  against  a  rival.  Purely 
extemporaneous  speech  was  very  early  found  to  be  ineffective,  and 
as  a  result  there  arose  a  large  number  of  Ts^vai,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  show  how  speech  could  be  used  to  the  best  advantage.^ 
Any  treatise  on  rhetoric  implies  preparation  and  study  on  the  part 
of  the  one  who  produces  it,  and  of  the  one  who  follows  it.  It  is 
the  result  of  its  author's  experience  and  observation,^  and  the  study 
of  this  is  the  means  by  which  the  pupil  attains  his  purpose.^  If  a 
people  '^practiced  rhetoric"  they  must  have  studied  to  make  their 
speeches  effective,  and  they  must  have  used  all  the  technical  knowl- 
edge they  possessed  to  attain  that  end. 

It  pleased  the  Greek  rhetoricians  to  trace  back  their  art,  not  only 
in  practice  but  in  theory,  to  even  before  the  time  of  Nestor,  Phoenix, 
Odysseus,  and  the  other  Homeric  heroes.*    The  rules  for  speeches 

*  The  first  of  these  came  into  being  as  a  result  of  the  political  disturbances 
in  Sicily  (cf,  p.  75):  Cases  which  dealt  with  this  period  must  be  settled 
largely  on  the  basis  of  the  probable,  and  it  was  the  man  of  training  who 
could  make  his  case  seem  most  probable.  The  man  able  to  speak  had  an 
advantage  over  the  one  who  could  not,  as  well  then  as  in  Aristotle's  time; 
(Cf.  Arist.  Rhet.  I,  12,  2;  24;  II,  2,  7). 

'Blair  (Lecture  XIV)  p.  348  Vol.  I  says:  "All  science  arises  from  ob- 
servations on  practice.  Practice  has  always  gone  before  method  and  rule; 
but  method  and  rule  have  afterwards  improved  and  perfected  practice  in 
every  art." 

"  Cf.  Hobbes's  Brief  of  Aristotle's  Rhetoric  I,  i :  "to  discover  method  is 
all  one  with  teaching  an  art." 

*  Syrianus  in  Hermog.  p.  17  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  43,  3  Walz)  :  avvSponog  7010 
y\  ^  Q-x\TOQiY.y\  x(p  XoYfp  xcov  rl^xtov  xal  jiqo  NEOxooog  xe  xat  IlaT-aiLiriSoug  xal 
^oivixog  xal  'OSuaoEcog  xal  jiqo  xwv  ev  IXicp  tioxt]xo  :rtaQ'  dv^Qcojroig  f|  yovv 
xaxd  KdSfiov  x.x.X.  Cf.  Plut.  De  Soc.  Genio  p.  309H;  also  Hermogenes 
(Rhet.  Gr.  II,  405,  25,  Spengel)',  where  Homer,  as  the  best  poet,  is  also  called 
the  best  orator  and  speech  writer.  Seymour  (Life  in  the  Homeric  Age)  p. 
44,  says:  "The  oratory  of  Nestor,  like  that  of  the  second  book  of  the  Iliad, 
where  Odysseus  urges  the  Achaeans  to  remain  before  Troy  (II,  284),  and 
that  of  the  ninth  book  of  the  Iliad,  where  Achilles  is  asked  to  return  to  the 


8"  EXTEM^OilLARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

in  very  early  times  were  doubtless  very  simple  ones  and  not  worthy 
of  the  name  of  ziyyai.  But  still  the  observance  of  them  would  take 
the  speakers  out  of  the  class  of  purely  extemporaneous  orators. 
One  critic  says  ^  that  the  germs  of  a  ts^vy]  existed  in  Homer,  and 
some  even  go  so  far  as  to  attribute  the  invention  of  the  St^^avtxo? 
XoYO?  not  to  Antiphon,  but  to  Menestheus,^  the  leader  of  the  Athen- 
ians at  Troy. 

Leaving  the  age  of  legend,  we  find  that  the  '^discovery"  of  rhe- 
toric is  ascribed  by  Aristotle  to  Empedocles.'^  Empedocles  himself 
seems  to  have  written  no  book  on  rhetoric,  but  perhaps  imbued 
Corax  and  the  other  rhetoricians  with  his  principles. 

field  of  conflict  (IX,  225  ff.),  is  no  natural  untrained  eloquence,  but  shows 
that  the  art  had  been  studied." 

Gladstone,  in  his  Homer  (p.  119)',  says:  "The  art  of  speech  was,  in  truth, 
at  this  period  what  may  be  termed  their  (the  Greeks)  only  fine  art;  and 
they  had  carried  it,  at  a  stroke,  to  its  perfection." 

The  practice  of  the  rhetoricians  of  tracing  their  art  back  to  the  Homeric 
heroes  is  parodied  by  Plato  in  the  Phaedrus  (261  B-C)  :  "What",  says 
Socrates  "have  you  heard  only  of  the  rhetorical  arts  of  Nestor  and  Odysseus, 
which  they  composed  during  their  leisure  in  Ilium,  and  have  you  never  heard 
of  those  by  Palamedes?"  "By  Zeus,"  replies  Phaedrus,  "I  have  not  even  heard 
of  those  by  Nestor,  unless  you  make  Gorgias  a  Nestor,  or  Thrasymachus  and 
Theodorus  an  Odysseus."  "Perhaps  I  do,"  returns  Socrates. 

According  to  the  Scholiast  on  the  passage,  by  Palamedes  Socrates  meant 
Zeno.  Holden  in  a  note  on  Plut.  Dem.  c  VIII,  3,  says  Plato  is  referring 
to  Alcidamas  under  the  name  of  Palamedes. 

"Auctor.  Proleg.  in  Hermog.  (Walz  VII,  5-6)  quoted  by  Spengel  {Art. 
Script,  p.  7)  :  xal  oxi  "G^iTiQog  xa  0;t8QM,aTa  xfig  xiyyy\c,  xaxE|3aA,EV,  eSri^^ooae 
TrjXeqpog  6  IlEQYa^Tivos  ooxig  %i'/yy\\  avyyQCP^ayizyoc,  EJievQa^e  keqi  xfjg  xai^' 
"O^iTiQOv  'pTixoQixfig  xdxEi  JtEQi  xcov  XQiaxaifiEXtt  oruvEYQaipaxo  axdaEcov  Xzyovai 
hi  xivEg  Sixavixov  Xoyov  EuprixEvai  [Cod.  eigrixEvai]  jxqojxov  MEVEO^Ea  xov 
oxQaxT]Yov  xcov  'AiBrivaicov  og  xai  EJtl  Tgoiav  d(pix£xo,  dA,?ioi  bk  \iyovGi 
*Avxi(p{ovxa.    Compare  Quintilian  X,  i,  49. 

^The  choice  of  Menestheus  as  originator  of  this  sort  of  speech  was  no 
doubt  due  to  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  late  writer  to  prove  the  superiority 
of  Athens  even  in  heroic  times.  It  was  on  the  basis  of  Komer's  mention  of 
Menestheus  {Iliad  II,  552;  XII,  Z72>;  XIII,  195;  cf.  ^sch.  Ill,  184;  Plut. 
Cimon  7)  that  Athens  claimed  the  right  to  the  leadership  against  Xerxes 
(Herod.  VII,  iS9-i6i). 

^Diogenes  Laertius  VIII,  57:  'Aeiaxox£A,Tig  8e  ev  x(p  2oq)i0xfi  (pT]al  rcQwxov 
*E|LiJiE6ox7.Ea  'qtixcqixtiv  evqeiv,  Zrivcova  Se  fiia^Exxixriv.  Cf.  also  IX,  25. 
Sextus  Empiricus  Adv.  Math.  VII,  6 :  EM.;iE8ox7,Ea  \ikv  ydg  6  'AQiaxoxE^.Tig 
cprioi  JtQcoxov  'qtixoqixtiv  xExivrixEvai.    Suidas  s.  v.  Zrivcov.     Quintilian  III,  i, 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC  9 

It  is  usually  agreed  that  the  founders  of  rhetoric  as  an  art  were 
Corax  and  Tisias  of  Syracuse,  the  first  of  whom  was  said  to  be  the 
author  of  the  first  rhetorical  treatise  or  Texvir].^    Whether  Corax,  or 

8:  nam  primus  post  eos  quos  poetae  tradiderunt  movisse  aliqua  circa  rhe- 
toricen  Empedocles  dicitur.  Aristotle  {De  Soph.  Elench.  183,  b.  31)  seems 
to  have  Empedocles  and  Corax  in  mind  when  he  says:  "The  original  in- 
ventors (of  the  art  of  rhetoric)  made  but  little  progress.  The  great 
modern  professors  inherited  from  those  who  went  before  them  many  suc- 
cessive improvements,  and  added  others  themselves.  Tisias  after  the  first 
inventors  of  the  art,  Thrasymachus  after  Tisias,  Theodorus  after  Thrasy- 
machus,  and  many  others  contributed  different  portions." 

Cf.  Verrall,  Journal  of  Philology,  Vol.  IX,  p.  129  ff;  and  197  ff.  In  the 
first  of  these  papers  Mr.  Verrall  states  that  Pindar,  in  a  passage  of  the 
Second  Olympian  Ode  (93  ff.)'  alludes  to  a  work  of  an  etymological  character 
by  two  authors,  one  of  whom  was  Corax  of  Syracuse.  His  co-worker  is 
not  named.  Mr.  Verrall  reaches  this  ingenious  conclusion  in  the  following 
manner.  In  line  93  of  the  Ode,  instead  of  eg  bk  to  jtolv,  he  argues  in  favor 
of  TOJtdv  from  xojiri,  a  noun  which  he  elicits  from  the  verb  xojidto)  or 
TOJtdco.  This  "divination"  (xo:tt|)  he  believes  meant  the  explanation  of  words, 
a  technical  explanation,  which  could  only  be  given  by  a  professional  in- 
terpreter. The  professors  of  this  species  of  learning  are  described  as  two 
in  number  (vaQvexov)  and  resemble  crows.  In  the  word  xopaxE?,  Mr. 
Verrall  sees  a  play  upon  the  name  of  the  Sicilian  rhetorician,  Corax.  He 
therefore  infers  that  the  Pindar  passage  contains  an  allusion  to  a  work  on 
etymology  by  Corax  and  some  unnamed  coadjutor. 

In  the  second  paper  Mr.  Verrall  undertakes  to  show  (i)  that  Tisias  was 
a  collaborator  with  Corax  in  his  xexvti,  and  (2)  that  Tisias  may  have  been  the 
collaborator  in  the  work  to  which  Pindar  alludes. 

If  we  accept  Mr.  Verrall's  view,  all  the  accounts  of  the  life  of  Tisias 
which  make  an  allusion  by  Pindar  chronologically  impossible  must  be  re- 
jected.    Mr.  Fennell  suggests  that  the  second  author  might  be  Empedocles. 

"  Quintilian  III,  i,  8.  Whether  Corax  and  Tisias  each  wrote  a  xexvT],  or 
whether  there  was  but  one  work  is  a  disputed  question.  Aristotle  mentions 
Tisias  as  the  immediate  successor  of  the  founders  of  the  art  of  rhetoric, 
{Soph.  Elench.  c.  34,  183b  31).  Cicero  {De  Invent.  II,  6)  calls  him  the  in- 
ventor and  princeps  of  the  art;  cf.  also  Plato,  Phaedrus  273C  and  Eudocia 
Aug.  DLXV,  p.  441  (ed.  Flach).  Later  {De  Orat.  I,  20,  91)  he  applies  the 
same  terms  to  both  Corax  and  Tisias,  and  in  the  Brutus  (XII,  46)  quoting 
Aristotle,  he  joins  them  as  the  authors  of  an  art ;  "artem  et  praecepta  Siculos 
Coracem  et  Tisiam  conscripsisse."  Plato  (Phaedrus  273A)  assigns  the 
theory  of  probability  to  Tisias  (cf.  also  267A)  ;  Aristotle  {Rhet.  II,  24),  to 
Corax.  Quintilian  (II,  17,  7,  and  III,  i,  8),  joins  the  two.  The  author  of 
the  Proleg.  ad  Hermog.  (p.  130A),  ascribes  the  treatise  to  Corax.    See  also 

Syrianus    ad    Hermog.    (Rhet.    Gr.    IV,    575    Walz) Kogai    6 

T£xvoYQdq)og.    Arsen.  Violet,  ed.  Walz  p.  506:  laoxQaxrig  Eljtovxog  auxcp  xivog, 


10  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

Corax  and  Tisias,  in  their  rules  for  speaking,  treated  the  subject  of 
extemporary  speech  is  unknown.  The  divisions  of  a  speech  which 
Corax  made,  proemium,  narrative,  argument,  subsidiary  remarks, 
and  peroration,^  would  seem  to  argue  preparation/^  Except  the 
story  of  his  lawsuit  with  his  pupil  Tisias,^^  there  is  no  evidence 
of  his  having  appeared  in  court  himself,  or  written  speeches  for 

8x1  6  bfinog  vno  xcov  'qtitoqcov  dojtd^exai,  xi  ^avuaaxov,  el  Kogaxog  ecpEvgov- 
X05  XT|v  'qtixcqixtiv  ol  djr'  exsivou  xogaxeg  eIoiv.  Two  explanations  are  pos- 
sible. First,  Corax  himself  wrote  no  xexvn.  His  instructions  were  oral,  and 
were  developed  and  committed  to  writing  by  his  pupil  Tisias.  This  is  the 
conclusion  reached  by  Susemihl,  Genet.  Entwickelung  d^r  platonisch  Philo- 
sophie  (1885)  I,  p.  485.  Second,  both  wrote  "arts".  That  of  Tisias  was  an 
expansion  of  that  of  his  master  and  superseded  it.  We  hear  nothing  of 
Corax's  work,  but  that  of  Tisias  was  a  well-known  text  book  in  Plato's  tim^ 
(Phaedrus  273A). 

Cf.  Verrall,  Journ.  Phil.  IX,  199-203,  on  the  reference  to  Tisias  in 
Aristotle,  Soph.  Elench.  p.  183b  32. 

W.  R.  Roberts  has  pointed  out  (Class.  Rev.  XVIII,  [1904]  pp.  18-21) 
that  the  fragment  of  a  rhetorical  treatise  recently  discovered  {Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri  Part  III,  pp.  27-30)  offers  some  interesting  points  of  contact  with 
the  Sicilian  rhetoric  of  Corax  and  Tisias  as  described  by  Cicero  {Brutus 
XII),  the  Prolegomena  in  Hermogenem  (Walz  Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  12),  and  Aris- 
totle (Soph.  Elench.  183b).  He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  words 
axQiPecog  and  VEYoa^ijAevaig,  found  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  fragment 
correspond  closely  to  the  accurate  and  de  scripto  (cf.  c.  II,  n.  31)  of  Cicero's 
quotation  from  Aristotle's  lost  cruvaYWY'n  xe/vcov  in  the  Brutus.  (Compare 
Alcidamas  13)'.  The  fragment  also  closely  agrees  with  the  purposes  and 
methods  of  Corax  as  given  in  the  Prolegomena  in  Hermogenem  and  con- 
tains the  same  technical  terms,  Sirivnoig  and  jiQOOifxiov.  For  a  full  discussion 
of  the  fragment  and  conjectures  as  to  its  possible  source  see  Roberts'  article. 

"Proleg.  in  Hermog.  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  11-12  Walz);  Spengel,  Art.  Script. 
p.  25.  Doxopater  (Rhet.  Gr.  VI,  13  Walz)  attributes  to  Corax  only  three 
divisions:  prooemium,  argument,  and  peroration.  Cf.  Rhet.  Gr.  Ill,  610, 
where  an  anonymous  author  gives  the  same  three. 

"  Not  necessarily  verbal  preparation.  The  speakers  need  not  have  writ- 
ten out  and  memorized  a  speech,  but  their  remarks  could  not  have  been 
arranged  under  such  heads  without  a  certain  amount  of  at  least  mental 
preparation. 

"  Auctor  Proleg,  in  Hermog.  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  13;  154  ff.,  Walz)  ;  Sopater, 
(Rhet.  Gr.  V,  6,  65,  Walz);  Max.  Plan.  (Rhet.  Gr.  V,  215,  Walz);  for 
another  version  see  Sext.  Empir.  Adv.  Math.  II,  96. 

The  same  story  is  told  of  the  suit  between  Protagoras  and  his  pupil 
Euathlus  by  Aulus  Gellius  (V,  10),  Marcell.  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  179,  Walz)', 
Apuleius  (Flor.  IV,  18)  ;  compare  Quintilian,  III,  i,  10. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         II 

Others,  although  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  may  have  done  so.^^ 
Under  the  circumstances  in  which  he  wrote,  he  would  hardly  fail 
to  set  forth  his  principles  of  rhetoric  in  written  speeches.^^ 

Whether  Gorgias  left  a  written  art  is  doubtful.^*  Diogenes 
Laertius,  quoting  Satyrius,  says  that  Gorgias  left  behind  him  a 
treatise  containing  a  complete  system  of  the  art  of  rhetoric.^^    His 

"Corax  appears  to  have  taught  rhetoric  for  a  living  because  he  failed 
in  political  life:  0^x05  6  Koqo^  ohr  (Westermann)  tp^ovcp  xQaxoujievos  ttiv 
Tf)5  'o'HT^OQixfig  xTiQVTTei  8i8aoxaX,iav  (Schol.  Hermog.  p.  26  Sp.)-  Cf.  Jebb, 
p.  CXXI. 

According  to  Pausanias  (VI,  17,  8),  Tisias  received  pay  for  writing  a 
pleading  for  a  certain  woman  of  Syracuse.  This  is  mentioned  only  by 
Pausanias,  and  doubts  have  arisen  as  to  the  reliability  of  the  statement. 
Cf.  Blass,  I,  21   (2nd.  ed.). 

^*Cf.  Navarre,  (Essai  sur  la  Rhetorique  Grecque)  p.  13.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  speeches  were  written  by  them  to  be  memorized  by  their 
clients  in  their  suits  at  law.  Navarre  believes  that  it  was  the  practice  of  his 
profession  which  suggested  to  Corax  the  idea  of  writing  a  formal  treatise. 

"Cf.  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,  53.  Diogenes  Laertius  (VIII,  58)  asserts 
that  Gorgias  left  behind  him  a  xExvn  and  the  author  of  the  Prolegomena  to 
Hermogenes  (Spengel,  Art.  Script,  p.  82)  agrees  with  him.  Quintilian 
(III,  I,  8)  includes  him  among  the  writers  of  "artes."  A  scholion  on 
Hermogenes  (quoted  by  Spengel  p.  78)  assigns  xexvai  to  the  sophist.  The 
latter  were,  however,  rather  dissertations  on  particular  questions  than  any 
one  complete  theory  (cf.  Welcker,  Kleine  Schriften  II,  456,  176).  Dionysius 
(De  Comp.  Verb.  c.  12)1  mentions  a  discussion  of  Gorgias  ategi  xaiQoO  with 
the  remark  that  he  was  the  first  who  ever  wrote  on  the  subject. 

Spengel  (p.  81)  would  deny  the  existence  of  any  rhetorical  treatise  by 
Gorgias  on  the  basis  of  passages  from  Aristotle  (Soph.  Elench.  c.  33,  183b  15) 
and  Cicero  {Brut.  XII,  46,)  but  Schanz  {Beitrage  zur  Vorsokratischen  Phil- 
osophie  p.  131)  declares  that  neither  of  these  passages  is  decisive.  Plato 
{Phaedrus  261 B,  267A)l  expressly  alludes  to  treatises  on  rhetoric  by  Gorgias. 
Cf.  also  Dionysius  {De  Comp.  Verb.  c.  12,  p.  68R)L  Blass's  conclusion,  how- 
ever, is  the  probable  one. 

Dr.  Siiss  (Ethos,  pp.  17-49)  regards  Gorgias  as  the  source  of  all  that  is 
good  in  the  rhetorical  ideas  of  Plato,  Alcidamas,  and  Isocrates.  Plato  and 
Isocrates  may  have  owed  far  more  to  Gorgias  than  we  can  see  at  present, 
but  Dr.  Siiss's  method  of  reasoning  does  not  convince  us  of  this  with 
certainty. 

^Diog.  Laert.  VIII,  58;  Quint.  Ill,  8;  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI;  Diod.  Sic. 
XII,  53;  Rhet.  Gr.  V,  543,  Wlalz;  Dionys.  Hal.  De  Comp.  Verb.  p.  7Z  (Goel- 
ler)  ;  Auctor  Proleg.  in  Hermog.  (Spengel  p.  82)  :  FogYiag  6  Aeovxlvog 
xaxd  TiQEij^ziav  eXi^ojv  'AOrivxici  xag  0UYYOa<P£iooi5  ^oiq'  avxcov  [Corace  et 
Tisia]    ExoM-iae    xai    auxog    exegav   :n:Q0O£^x£  *    xal    piex'    avxov    'Avxiq){ov    6 


12  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

method  of  teaching,  Uke  that  of  Protagoras/^  rested  on  the  com- 
mission to  memory  of  prepared  passages  :  "he  wrote  panegyrics  and 
invectives  on  every  subject,  for  he  thought  it  was  the  province  of 
an  orator  to  be  able  to  exaggerate  or  extenuate  as  occasion  might 
require."  ^^  That  he  advocated  extemporary  speech  is,  of  course, 
clear.  The  object  of  his  teaching  was  to  enable  orators  to  speak 
plausibly  on  any  subject  at  a  moment's  notice.^^  But  this  power  was 
to  come  as  a  result  of  his  teaching,  and  the  method  he  followed.  The 
commission  to  memory  of  general  topics  and  devotion  to  style  would 
seem  to  argue  that  the  so-called  extemporary  speeches  were  in  part, 
at  least,  carefully  prepared  and  even  memorized.  The  preparation 
of  the  Sophists  was  none  the  less  preparation  because  it  was  for  all 
occasions  rather  than  for  any  particular  one.^^ 


'PajAvovaiog  6  8i8daxaA.05  Xiyeiai  texvt]v  vgdaiJai*  ^leta  xavxa  'Iaoy,Q6.xr\q  6 
'QrJTCDQ.  Cf.  Aristotle,  Soph.  Elench.  c,  34;  Plato,  Phaedrus  261B-C.  The 
work  of  Gorgias's  pupil,  Polus,  doubtless  contained  his  doctrines.  Syrianus 
(Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  44,  Walz)  calls  this  work  of  Polus  a  te/vt).  Suidas  (s.  v. 
Polus)  calls  it  jieqI  Xeierag.  In  Plato's  Gorgias  (462B-C)  we  are  told  that 
Socrates  had  read  this  work.  On  this  passage  the  scholiast  on  the  Gorgias 
remarks:  ex  tovtou  8fj^ov,  oxi  ov%  6  e^  oiqx^S  "^o^  lidikov  Xoyoc,  avtooxEfiiog 
■nv  oXka  aTJYYQttM'M'Oi.  This  statement  seems  very  doubtful.  On  p.  448C  of 
the  Gorgias  the  scholiast  says:  (paai  M'^  £|  avxoaxeSiov  xov  ITcbXov  xavxa 
eIjieiv,  KQOG\3yyQay^6.\JiZ\o\  Se,  probably  meaning  that  Plato  in  this  passage 
has  preserved  a  fragment  of  Polus's  xe/vti,  possibly  its  opening  sentence. 
He  is  said  to  have  borrowed  some  technical  terms  from  Licymnius  (cf. 
scholiast  on  Phaedrus  267C)',  whose  art  of  rhetoric  is  mentioned  by  Aris- 
totle, {Rhiet.  Ill,  13,  5). 

"Cf.  Quintilian  III,  i,  10;  Spengel,  pp.  42-45. 

"Cicero,  Brutus  XII,  46-47;  Arist.  Soph.  Elench.  c.  34,  183b.  Cf.  also 
Quintilian  III,  i,  12.  The  scholia  or  commentary  of  Olympiodorus  on  the 
Gorgias,  printed  in  the  Supplement  to  Jahn's  Jahrhucher  Bd.  XIV,  is  a  copy 
of  what  professes  to  be  contemporary  notes  of  the  oral  lectures  of  the 
rhetorician. 

The  picture  drawn  by  Plato  of  the  method  of  teaching  of  Gorgias  must 
not  be  taken  as  decisive  evidence.  We  are  told  by  Athenaeus  (XI,  113),  and 
the  story  is  not  improbable,  that  when  the  dialogue  was  read  to  Gorgias  he 
assured  his  friends  that  he  never  said  or  heard  any  of  the  things  contained 
in  it. 

^^ Compare  Cicero's  definition  of  an  orator:   De  Orat.  I.  6,  21;  13,  59. 

"On  the  services  rendered  by  the  Sophists  to  eloquence,  see  Blass, 
Att.  Bereds.  II,  125;    Navarre,  pp.  66-71. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         1 3 

According  to  Aristotle,^^  the  next  after  Tisias  to  take  up  rhet- 
oric was  Thrasymachus  of  Chalcedon.-^  He  is  said  to  have  been 
the  author  of  an  **art  of  rhetoric",^^  and  also  to  have  written 
d(pop(JLat  'pyjTOpixat,^^  which  may  not  have  differed  from  his  large 
treatise,  a  collection  of  exordia,-*  discussions  on  climaxes, ^^  and 
on  the  means  of  arousing  pity.^^ 

We  are  told  that  Antiphon  was  the  first  to  publish  an  art  of 
rhetoric:  xpwxo?  8e  v.<x\  'pYjioptx-a?  xe/vac;  e?YjV£7y,£  ysv6[j.£V0?  ^YX'" 
voui;.^^     Pollux  declares  that  the  treatise  current  under  Antiphon's 

""  Soph.  ElencK  c.  34. 

"On  Thrasymachus  see  Blass  I,  240  ff.,  Jebb,  {An.  Or.)  II,  423  Cope 
(Journ.  Class,  and  Sac.  Phil.)  111,268-281;  C.  F.  Hermann,  de  Thrasymacho 
Chalcedonio  (Gottingen,  1848);  Suidas  s.  v.  Thrasymachus;  Dionys.  Hal. 
de  Isaeo  p.  627;  de  Dem.  c.  3;  c?^  Lys.  c.  6. 

^Suidas  s.  n. ;  cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  267C-D,  271  A;  and  the  couplet  in 
Athenaeus  (X,  454)  quoted  by  Blass  (I.  243),  where  the  name  is  given  by 
the  first  letters  of  the  words  in  the  first  line;  also  the  scholiast  on  Juvenal 
VII,  203. 

^Suidas;  Navarre,  p.  155,  believes  these  are  to  be  identified  with  the 
rhetoric  mentioned  by  the  Scholiast  on  Aristophanes'  Birds,  850.  According 
to  Welcker  {Kl.  Schr.  II,  457),  the  dcpogjAal  'qtitoqixqi  are  identical  with  the 

VJlEQpdXPlOVXEg, 

^^  Athenaeus  X,  p.  416A. 

*  vjiEePd^Xovxeg  (^6701),  Plutarch,  Symp.  I,  2,  3,  (616D). 

^H'A,eoi.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  i.  These  were  no  doubt  what  Cicero  calls 
"miserationes" :  Top.  XXII,  86;  Part.  Or.  XVII,  56;  Brut.  XXI,  82;  De  Or. 
Ill,  30,  118;  Orat.  XXXVII,  130;  De  Inv.  I,  98;  106  ff.;  Quint.  VI,  i,  21-45. 
Cf.  Volkmann,  sec.  28,  p.  222.  From  Plato,  Phaedrus,  267C,  Blass  {Att. 
Bereds.  I,  248  ff.,  2nd.  ed.)'  would  suggest  that  Thrasymachus  wrote  a  treatise 
on  arousing  anger  and  one  on  invective.  All  these  may  have  been  separate 
treatises  or  chapters  in  his  great  work  (Navarre,  p.  156).  They  were  prob- 
ably collections  of  examples  rather  than  theoretical  treatments  of  the  sub- 
jects. Spengel  {Art  Script,  p.  96)'  believes  that  Thrasymachus  is  described 
in  the  following  passage  of  Aristotle;   {Rhet.  I,  i,  p.  1354A)  :  viiv  m-ev  ovv 

ol  xd?  xExvag  xcov  Xoycov  ovvxi^^evxes  bXiyov  jiEJiOQixaaiv  avxfig  inogiov 

SiaPoXr)  vdo  xal  E^Eog  xal  OQvn  xai  xd  xoiaCxa  JtddY),  xfj?  y^vyir\c,  ou  tczqi  x6u 
Jiodypiaxog  eaxiv  d?iXd  Jigog  xov  8ixaaxr|v.  Cf.  also  Plato,  Rep.  I,  336B. 
Dionysius  {de  Dem.  c.  3)  praises  his  SiinYiYOQixovg  Xovoug,  probably  the  same 
called  by  Suidas  (TUM.povX,£Vxixoi.  These  Navarre  (p.  417)  says  were  not  real 
speeches  but  only  compositions  to  serve  as  models.  This  would  account 
for  the  statement  of  Dionysius  that  Thrasymachus  left  no  judicial  or  de- 
liberative speeches  {de  Isaeo  c.  20). 

"  Pseudo-Plut.  Vit.  X  Oratt.  832E;  also  Quintilian  III,  i,  11:  "artem  et 
ipse  (Antiphon)  composuit."  Diod.  Sic.  ap.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  I,  365:  cpaol 


14  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

name  is  spurious,^^  but  he  seems  to  be  alone  among  ancient  critics 
in  that  opinion.^^  There  seems  to  have  been  a  difference  of  opinion 
in  ancient  times  as  to  whether  Antiphon  "discovered"  rhetoric  or 
only  advanced  an  art  already  existing.^^  Hermogenes  describes 
him  as  the  inventor  and  founder  of  the  political  style.^^  He  is, 
at  any  rate,  the  first  Greek  whose  works  are  extant  who  combines 
the  theory  with  the  practice  of  rhetoric. 

It  is  possible  to  form  some  idea  of  Antiphon's  treatise.^^  In  his 
extant  speeches  we  find  a  combination  of  natural  eloquence  with  the 
rhetorical    influence  of    Gk>rgias,^^    of    whom   one   account   makfes 


88  xal  Tovg  xaxa  fiiaTQipTjv  "Koyovi;  %aX  xa  'qtitoqixoi  ISicoM-axa  evqeiv  xal  fxiadov 

(TuvnYOQ^aai jtQcbxov   Sixavixov   Xoyov   elq   exSoaiv   yQa'\^a\xz\o\ 

X.  X.  "k.  Photius  Cod.  CCLIX :  jtQooxov  fie  auxov  xal  'QT]X0Qixa5  cruvxd|aordai 
(paoi  xexvag  dy^ivow  VEvovoxa.  7EV05  'AvxKpoovxog,  4;  iir\b'  f\\  jtco  xis  xoxe 
M-TixE  xexvcov.  'qt)xoqix6)v  ovyyQa(pzv(; 

"Pollux  VI,   143: ev  xaig  'QrjxOQixaig  xexvan;    ['Avxiqjwv 

eljtEv]  fioxovai  b'ov  y\r\Giai 

'^  Cf.  Dionys.  Hal.  First  Letter  to  Ammaeus  c.  2 :  "I  would  not  have  them 
think  that  all  the  precepts  of  rhetoric  are  included  in  the  Peripatetic  phil- 
osophy, and  that  nothing  important  has  been  devised  by  such  men  as  Theo- 
dorus,  and  Thrasymachus,  and  Antiphon;  nor  by  Isocrates  and  Anaximenes 
and  Alcidamas,  nor  by  their  contemporaries  who  composed  rhetorical  hand- 
books, and  engaged  in  oratorical  contests,  such  men  as  Theodectes,  and 
Philiscus,  and  Isaeus,  and  Cephisodorus,  together  with  Hyperides,  and 
Lycurgus,  and  ^schines."  (Roberts). 

"°  Philostratus,  Fit.  Soph.  I,  15,  2;  Eud.  Aug.  CVIII,  and  Suidas  s.  v. 
Antiphon. 

®^  Hermogenes,  De  Form.  II,  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  415,  Sp.)  :  rtptoxog  Xiytxai 
EVQTjxTig  xal  apxriYo?  yzxia^ax.  xov  xvjtou  xoO  jroXixixoO. 

•^It  would  seem  that  the  work  was  of  rather  a  technical  nature.  Galen 
Praef.  ad  Glossas  Hippocrat.  19,  p.  66  (Kuhn)  :  oxi  bz  xal  avxog  ^xaaxog  xcov 
tteqI  "koyovc,  exovxcov  fi|iou  jtoieiv  ovopiaxa  xaivd,  bvikol  \ik,v  xal  'Avxicprov 
Ixavcog,  og  yz  ojtcog  avxa  jtoitixeov  Ex8i8dax£i.  Also  Ammonius  tc.  8iaq).  "kzE,. 
p.  127  (Valcken)  :  otijxeiov  xal  xex|iit|qiov  8ia(p£QEi.  'Avxiqpcov  ev  xfj  XExvn  xd 
M-Ev  JtagoixoM-Eva  ariM-Eioig  Kiaxovof^ai,  xd  8e  M-e^^ovxa  xexjatiqiois.  Cf.  also 
p.  173.  Other  passages  referring  to  the  xexvt]  also  seems  to  deal  with  mean- 
ings of  words:  Antiattic.  B.  A.  p.  78,  6: — daxogyla,  (piXoaxopYia,  oxoovri* 
*Avxi(pcbv  EV  8euxeq(p  k.  xy\c,  ^Qy\x.  xexvt)?.  p.  79,  i :  ajtagaaxEuaoxov, 
'Avxiqpcov  XQix(p  'QTixoQixfig  xexvTig.  p.  no,  33:  oXiyocpdiav.  'Avxitpcov  xgixcp. 
Pollux  III,  63 :  JioA,uq)iXiav  8e  xal  6Xi7oq)iA.iav  'AvxKpwv. 

"Cf.  Philostratus,  Vit.  Soph.  I,  15,  6:— (X-ovoig)  ev  0I5  f|  8£iv6xTig  xal 
Jidv  x6   Ix   XEXVT15   EYxeixai Cf.    Blass,    I,    130-134.      Compare 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         1 5 

Antiphon  a  pupil,^*  and  it  is  of  course  natural  to  suppose  that  in 
his  speeches  he  set  forth  the  principles  advocated  in  his  xexvY).  In 
the  passages  referring  to  this  work  there  is  no  hint  that  he  preached 
the  doctrine  of  extemporary  speech,  although  he  may  of  course, 
have  done  so  in  parts  of  the  treatise  which  have  not  been  preserved. 
All  the  evidence  we  have  supports  the  opposite  belief,  that  he  en- 
joined upon  the  orator  care  and  practice:  'Av-ct^wv  ts  ev  xoTiq 
'pY]Topt>tat?  Ts^vat?  TO  [JL£V  Ta  xapovia  s^y]  x-at  uxapxovTa  /.al  xapa- 
xstpieva  acffGoveffOat  xaxa  (puciv  elvai  iq^jliv  •  Tcojpa  <p6atv  8s  to  cpuXaTTStv 
auTWv  socTuoScov  Ysvo(JL5v<ov  evapYY)  tov  tutcov.^^  Two  other  things  seem 
to  indicate  that  his  ts^viq  would  advise  preparation  of  speeches,  in 
part,  at  least.  These  are  his  tetralogies,^^  and  his  collection  of 
prooemia  and  epilogues.  The  first  were  probably  [LzXixai,  school 
exercises  or  examples,  in  his  rhetorical  treatise.  In  them  only  the 
essential  framework  for  discussion  is  supplied.  They  are  merely 
skeletons  to  be  filled  out  as  occasion  might  require.  It  cannot  he 
proved  that  the  tetralogies  were  not  issued  separately.  But  since 
they  are  exactly  the  sort  of  thing  which  would  show  the  ability  of 
Antiphon  to  argue  well  on  both  sides  of  a  case,^^  a  power  which 
as  a  rhetorician  he  doubtless  claimed  to  possess,^^  it  seems  possible, 
at  least,  to  assign  them  to  the  texvy].^® 

Dionysius'  remarks  on  Gorgias  (De  Imitat.  II,  8) ;  see,  however,  Frei. 
Quaest.  Protag.  530  ff.  Mahaffy  {Hist.  Class.  Gr.  Lit.)  p.  82  says:  "His  style 
shows,  as  might  be  expected,  evident  traces  of  the  study  of  Tisias  and 
Gorgias,  the  reasonable  presumptions  (elxoxa)  of  Tisias,  and  the  antitheses 
of  Gorgias  being  prominent  in  his  speeches." 

"^Suidas  s.  v.  Antiphon. 

*  Longinus,  Rhet.  Gr,  I,  318,  9  Sp. 

"^The  authenticity  of  the  Tetralogies  has  been  questioned.  The  argu- 
ments given  for  them  in  the  following  works  seem  conclusive:  Blass,  Att. 
Bereds.  II  (2nd.  ed.),  pp.  151-154;  Croiset,  Hist,  de  la  Lit.  Grecque,  IV,  73; 
Cucuel,  Essai  sur  la  langue  et  le  style  de  I'orateur  Antiphon  p.  I27ff. 

"^  Cf .  Auctor  Hypothes.  in  Antiphont.  Tetralog :  Jiavtaxou  jxev  ttiv  olxeiav 
*AvTiq)c6v  dvfieixvutai  fivvajxiv,  \i6.Xioxa  8'  ev  xavtaig  xaig  xexQaXoyiaK;  ev  alg 
avxbt;  kq6<;  avxbv  dYCOVitetai.  Avco  yag  vkeq  xov  xaxriYOQOu  ^6701)5  eiJtwv, 
fiuo)  xal  vjiZQ  xov  qpevYOVxog  e\ieXBXT(\aev,  OM-oicog  ev  a\iq)OxiQOii;  EuSoxifxcov.  Cf. 
Arist.  Rhet.  I,  i,  12. 

'*  Compare  the  story  of  Carneades'  ability  to  so  argue,  and  Cato's  horror 
at  the  proceeding:  Quintilian,  XII,  i,  35;  at  greater  length  in  Lactantius, 
Div.  Inst.  V,  13,  16;  Plut.  Cato;  Pliny,  N.  H.  VII,  31. 

'^Sauppe  (Fragm.  Oratt.  Gr.  p.  145)  and  Spengel  (Art.  Script,  p.  117) 
believe  the  Tetralogies  to  be  examples  taken  from  the  xix"^- 


l6  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

The  collection  of  Proems  and  Epilogues  (xpootVia  >tat  stciXoyoi) 
ascribed  to  Antiphon  may  also  have  had  a  place  in  the  "art."  But 
since  we  know  of  collections  of  such  parts  of  speeches  by  orators  who 
never  wrote  a  formal  treatise,  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  they 
were  issued  separately.  Such  collections  furnished  the  orator  with 
introductions  and  conclusions  of  speeches.  They  were  of  so  general 
a  nature  as  to  be  applicable  to  almost  any  speech,  and  their  use  im- 
plies verbal  preparation  and  memorization  at  least  for  part  of  the 
oration.  Blass  *°  suggests  that  Antiphon  may  have  used  this  col- 
lection of  his  for  the  opening  and  closing  passages  of  the  speech 
"On  the  Murder  of  H erodes,"  and  the  opening  of  that  "On  the 
Choreutes."  Examples  of  the  7upootVt<z  have  been  preserved  by 
Suidas.*^    The  passage  in  Cicero's  Brutus  (c.  XII)  where  he  quotes 

a  statement  from  Aristotle, ''huic   (Gorgiae)   Anti- 

phontem  Rhamnusium  similia  quaedam  habuisse  conscripta,"  prob- 
ably refers  to  this  collection.*^ 

The  period  of  Lysias'  activity  at  Athens  was  not  unlike  the  crisis 
at  Syracuse  which  produced  the  earliest  masters  of  rhetoric,  Corax 
and  Tisias.  Except  the  doubtful  story  in  Aristotle,  which  Cicero 
repeats,*^  we  have  no  evidence  that  he  taught  rhetoric,  yet  he,  too, 
is  said  to  have  produced  a  rhetorical  treatise,**  and  a  collection  of 
commonplaces.*^ 


On  the  Tetralogies  as  "oeuvres  d'ecole"  see  Cucuel,  p.  131.  Cf.  also 
Siiss,  Ethos  pp.  3-10. 

*^  An.  Bereds,  p.  103.    Cf.  de  caede  Herod.  14,  87  and  de  Chor.  2,  3. 

"s.  V.  afxa,  aladeadai,  m-oxOtiqo?;  also  Pollux  VI,  143;  Photius  s.  v. 
fiox^TiQog.  B.  A.  p.  359,  6. 

*^Cf.  Blass,  p.  103;  Mahaffy,  II,  p.  94,  believes  that  the  reference  is  to 
the  extant  tetralogies.  Cicero,  in  the  above-mentioned  passage,  discusses 
"communes  loci";  under  this  heading  the  proems  and  epilogues  certainly 
would  be  included.  The  term  does  not  seem  nearly  so  applicable  to  the 
tetralogies. 

**  Cicero,  Brutus  XII,  48.  Compare  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo  p.  365 ;  Spengel, 
Art.  Script,  p.  98n. ;  Westermann,  sec.  46,  6. 

**  Pseudo-Plut.  836B;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Lysias;  Eud.  Aug.  619,  p. 463  (Flach). 

*"  jittQaaxEuai.  Cf.  Siiss,  pp.  lo-ii;  Blass,  I,  (2nd.  ed.)'  382  n.  i.  Navarre 
p.  158,  believes  that  these  were  distinct  from  his  treatise  on  rhetoric.  On 
these  productions  see  Marcellinus  in  Hermog.  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  352  Walz)  : 
they  were  xojioi  78YV|Livaan£voi.  Navarre,  p.  166,  says:  "I'ouvrage  de  Lysias 
n'etait  pas  un  traite  theoriquc  mais  un  recueil  de  modeles." 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         \J 

Even  if  Lysias  did  not  write  an  art  of  rhetoric  himself,  he  at 
least  served  as  a  text  for  one.  Plato's  Phaedrus  has  very  aptly  been 
described  as  "a  dramatized  treatise  on  rhetoric."  ^^  Indeed,  if  one 
can  imagine  a  great  genius  dramatizing  Aristotle's  Rhetoric,  the 
result  would  probably  be  an  approach  to  the  second  half  of  the 
Phaedrus.  The  popular  treatises  on  the  art  of  rhetoric  excited 
Plato's  ridicule  and  both  in  the  Phaedrus  and  in  the  Gorgias  he 
holds  them  and  their  professors  up  to  scorn.*^  But  in  the  Phaedrus, 
as  Thompson  observes,*^  Plato  furnishes  us  with  the  scheme  of  a 
new  and  philosophical  rhetoric,  founded  partly  on  psychology  and 
partly  on  dialectic,  and  which  he  exemplifies  in  the  second  erotic 
discourse.*^  At  the  beginning  of  the  Phaedrus,^^  a  speech  at- 
tributed   to    Lysias    is    read    by    Phaedrus,^^    and    criticized    by 

Aristotle  mentions  two  other  writers  of  treatises  on  rhetoric  who  de- 
veloped Toirtoi.  Of  these  the  first  is  Calippus  (Rhet.  II,  23,  13,  1399a;  also 
1400a),  and  the  other  Pamphius  (Rhet.  II,  23,  20,  1400a;  see  1373a).  The 
latter  is  praised  by  Cicero  (de  Orat.  Ill,  21,  81)  ;  see  also  Quintilian  III, 
6,  34. 

*^  Thompson,  Phaedrus,  p.  XIV  (Introd.). 

*''  In  the  Gorgias  he  characterizes  rhetoric  as  a  mere  trick  acquired  by 
practice.  Cf.  Gorgias,  462C;  Phaedr.  260E. 

*' Introd.  p.  XIV. 

*®  Phaedr.  244-257C.  Cf .  Thompson,  Introd.  p.  XV. 

'*227C. 

"  Whether  or  not  the  Eroticus  ascribed  to  Lysias  {Phaedr.  230E-236B) 
is  genuine,  is  a  much  debated  question.  Lysias  is  mentioned  as  the  author 
of  erotic  discourses  by  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  (836B),  Suidas  (s.  v.  Lysias), 
Eudocia  Augusta  (619  p.  463  Flach),  Photius  (Cod.  CCLXII),  Harpocration 
(s.  V.  'AjiayoQevEiv)  and  Maximus  of  Tyre  (XVIII,  5),  and  so  far  as  we 
know  he  was  the  first  to  commit  to  writing  discourses  of  this  description 
(Thompson,  Phaedrus,  p.  151  n.  3).  The  ancient  critics,  Hermeias,  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  (Ep.  ad  Pompeium,  de  Platone,  775R),  Diogenes  Laertius 
(III,  c.  19)  all  believe  it  genuine.  Cornelius  Pronto  wrote  an  Eroticus  in 
imitation  of  that  ascribed  to  Lysias,  and  neither  he  nor  his  pupil,  Marcus 
Aurelius,  for  whom  the  discourse  was  written,  seem  to  have  doubted  that  the 
speech  in  the  Phaedrus  was  the  work  of  Lysias. 

Among  modern  critics,  Jebb  (Att.  Or.  I,  p.  305  if.)  believes  the  speech  a 
genuine  production  of  Lysias.  He  bases  his  belief  first,  on  the  elaborate 
dramatic  introduction  for  a  verbally  exact  recital  of  the  speech,  which 
Phaedrus  has  spent  the  day  memorizing  (Phaedr.  228A-C),  a  preface  which 
he  says  would  be  inartistic  if  the  speech  were  merely  Plato's  imitation  of 
Lysias,  but  which  is  perfectly  fitting  as  an  apology  for  incorporating  into 


l8  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Socrates.^^  Phaedrus  thereupon  demands  that  Socrates  make  a  bet- 
ter speech  on  the  same  theme.  Socrates,  after  ironically  depreciating 
his  own  ability  as  a  speaker,  and  the  folly  of  his  attempting  to  speak 
"extempore"^^  on  the  subject  on  which  Lysias,  the  most  able  writer 
of  the  day,  has  spent  a  long  time,^*  makes  a  speech  ^^  which  he  imme- 
diately recants  on  the  ground  of  impiety,  in  the  second  erotic  dis- 
course, which  exemplifies  the  theory  of  rhetoric  contained  in  the 
rest  of  the  dialogue. 

Plato's  definition  of  rhetoricj  Xoyou  5uva[JLt?  TUYxavst  (j^uxaywYta  ^® 


his  own  production  so  large  a  portion  of  the  work  of  another,  (Phaedrus 
228;  also  243C:  6  8x  Tov  (3i|3A,iou  'QTidei?),  and  second,  on  the  closeness  of 
Socrates's  criticism,  which  would  not  have  much  meaning  or  force  "if  the 
satirist  were  merely  analyzing  his  own  handiwork".  Others  who  hold  this 
opinion  are  Spengel  (Art  Script,  p.  122  ff.),  Westermann,  Sauppe,  Vater, 
Susemihl,  and  Egger  (Observations  sur  I'Eroticos  insere  sous  le  nom  de 
Lysias  dans  le  Phedre  de  Platon,  Annuaire  des  fitudes  grecques  1871)';  Blass, 
(Att.  Bereds.  I,  416-23);  Thompson  (Phaedrus,  App.  I,  and  Gorgias,  Introd. 
iii),  Grote,  (Plato,  III,  p.  47).  The  opposite  view  is  taken  by  Stallbaum, 
Jowett  (Introd.  to  the  Phaedrus),  Perrot  (L' eloquence  Pol.  et  Jud.  a 
Athenes,  p.  246),  Miiller  (Donaldson)  II,  p.  140,  C.  F.  Hermann,  Mahaffy 
(Gr,  Lit.  II,  pp.  141-142),  and  Croiset,  IV,  436.  Cf.  also  Siiss,  pp.  11-12,  ^nd 
p.  71  ff. 

°^  230E-234D. 

'"'236D. 

"  227D-228. 

"2376-241 D. 

•^In  reality,  Plato's  definition  has  an  element  which  that  of  the  rheto- 
ricians does  not  possess.  Dr.  Siiss  (Ethos,  p.  79,  and  99)  transfers  the 
Platonic  definition  to  Gorgias.  He  cites  as  proof  a  passage  in  Gorgias* 
Helen  (sec.  10),  and  two  passages  of  Isocrates  (II,  49,  and  IX,  10).  The 
passage  of  Gorgias  does  not  contain  the  word,  and  Isocrates  uses  it  in  a  very 
different  sense  from  Plato.  In  the  first  passage,  Isocrates  is  speaking  as  a 
moralist.  With  the  examples  of  Homer  and  the  tragedians  before  us,  he 
says,  there  is  proof  given  to  those  who  desire  to  entertain  (liiuxaYtoyeiv) 
their  audience  that  they  must  refrain  from  admonitions  and  advice,  and 
must  say  only  such  things  as  they  see  that  crowds  most  delight  in.  In  the 
second  passage,  also,  Isocrates  is  not  speaking  as  a  rhetorician.  He  is  merely 
stating  that  poetry  possesses  means  of  entertaining  the  hearers  which  prose 
lacks. 

Plato  goes  back  to  the  etymology  of  the  word,  "a  guidance  of  the  soul," 
and  uses  it  to  emphasize  the  psychological  element  in  rhetoric. 

See  Professor  Shorey's  review  of  Doctor  Siiss's  book  (Classical  Philolo- 
gy^ Vol.  VI,  No.  I,  p.  iio)l 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         I9 

ouaa,^^  seemingly  does  not  differ  much  from  that  held  by  the  rhet- 
oricians,^^ and  elsewhere  ^^  he  shows  that  he  appreciates  its  worth. 
But  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  present  discussion  to  enter  into 
Plato's  ideas  about  rhetoric  in  general.  It  will  deal  only  with  his 
remarks  upon  the  relative  value  of  the  written  and  the  spoken 
speech.  In  the  Phaedrus,  the  first  valuable  extant  treatise  on  rhet- 
oric, there  is  no  discussion  of  extempore  speech.  The  question  dis- 
cussed is  the  greater  value  of  oral  as  compared  with  written  dis- 
course, or  rather,  of  oral  as  compared  with  written  instruction.^^ 
These  remarks  are  introduced  by  the  myth  of  Theuth,  the  scene  of 
which  is  laid  in  Egypt,  the  supposed  source  of  written  discourse.^^ 
The  object  of  the  fable  is  to  show  that  the  art  of  writing  causes 
men  to  neglect  the  cultivation  of  the  memory,  and  gives  them  the 
appearance  and  not  the  reaHty  of  wisdom.®^  Written  words,  goes 
on  Socrates,  are  of  no  further  value  than  to  remind  one  who  al- 
ready knows  the  subject  of  which  the  writings  treat.^^    Writing  is 

""Phaedrus,  271 D. 

^'qtitoqixt]  Jtei^oug  811^101)070?  (Plato,  Gorgias,  453 A,  452E,  454E,  4S6A. 
This  definition  originated  with  Corax  and  Tisias  (Proleg.  in  Hermog.  Rhet. 
Gr.  Ill,  611,  and  IV,  19  Walz)  ;  Ammianus  Marcellinus  XXX,  4,  3:  "Tisias 
suasionis  opificem  esse  memorat  assentiente  Leontino  Gorgia";  of.  Aristotle, 
Rhet.  I,  2,  I.  Doxopater  {Rhet.  Gr.  II,  104  Walz)  attributes  this  to  Gorgias 
himself,  but  is  probably  quoting  Plato;  cf.  also  Rhet.  Gr.  VII,  33  (Walz). 
Quintilian,  II,  15,  3  ff.,  attributes  the  definition  to  Isocrates  and  finds  fault 
with  it  as  too  wide;  compare  II,  15,  10.  See  also  Isocrates  apud  Sextus 
Empiricus  Adv.  Math.  II,  62,  p.  301F;  Rhet.  Gr.  Ill,  451  Sp.  Alcidamas  is 
said  to  have  defined  rhetoric  in  his  xexvr]  as  Suvapiig  xoC  ovxog  Jti^dvou, 
(Proleg.  in  Hermog.  Rhet.  Gr.  VII,  8  Walz)  Aristotle  (I,  i,  14;  II,  i,  7) 
has  the  following  definition:  "Rhetoric  is  the  faculty  of  observing  or  dis- 
covering in  every  case  the  possible  means  of  persuasion";  cf.  I,  2,  i.  This 
is  objected  to  by  Quintilian,  II,  15,  13.  Cf.  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  31,  138;  III, 
14,  53;  de  Invent.  I,  5,  6;  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  30,  27. 

^Polit.  304A  ff. 

*°The  oral  exercises  which  formed  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Academy 
were  ridiculed  and  disparaged  by  the  comic  poets.  Cf.  Epicrates  ap.  Athenaeus 
II.  59C  (Meineke  III,  p.  370),  and  the  amusing  picture  of  the  orator  in  the 
Naufragus  of  Ephippus  (Meineke  III,  p.  332),  quoted  by  Athenaeus  (XI, 
p.  S09C) . 

'^274C-275B.  Cf.  Quintilian  XI,  2,  9.  Pithoeus  observes  that  there  was 
a  similar  opinion  among  the  Druids  (Caesar,  B.  G.  VI,  14.) 

^275. 

•"275C-D. 


20  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

like  painting,  its  productions  seem  alive,  but  they  can  neither  answer 
questions  nor  defend  themselves  when  attacked.  Writing  is  the 
same  for  all,  and  cannot  adapt  itself  to  different  persons,^*  as  the 
true  orator  ought  to  do.^^  The  written  word  is  only  an  eidolon  of 
the  spoken  discourse,  and  is  only  its  voOo*;  aSeXcpo?.^®  Therefore 
the  philosopher  who  has  true  ideas  of  the  just,  the  beautiful,  and 
the  good,  will  not,  in  his  serious  moods,  "write  them  in  water"  by 
committing  them  to  paper;  he  will  not  sow  them  in  ink  through 
a  reed,  in  the  form  of  discourses  which  are  both  unable  to  defend 
themselves  and  to  convey  an  exact  impression  of  the  truth.^''  This 
he  will  do  only  for  the  sake  of  recreation,  and  as  a  substitute  for 
the  amusements  of  the  many.^® 

Rhetoric,  then,  is  inferior  to  dialectic,  which,  when  it  works  in 
minds  suited  to  it,  is  the  surest  way  to  propagate  truths  and  preserve 
them  from  extinction.^^ 

As  to  speeches,  it  has  been  shown,  says  Socrates,  that,  whether 
dialectic  or  persuasive,  they  cannot  be  constructed  technically,  that 
is,  scientifically,  even  so  far  as  their  nature  admits  of  such  treatment, 
unless  the  speaker  or  writer  has  been  thoroughly  trained  in  dialectic, 
and  can  define  any  term  he  uses  and  divide  it  into  parts  until  such 
division  is  no  longer  possible,  and  unless  he  can  adjust  his  discourse 
to  the  different  types  of  mind/^ 

Speech  writing  in  itself  is  not  disgraceful.  The  disgrace  lies  in 
writing  speeches  ill.^^  The  speech  will  be  written  well  if  the  writer 
esteems  his  art  at  its  true  value ;  if  he  knows  that  the  best  of  written 
speeches  are  for  the  purpose  of  reminding  those  who  already  know, 
and  that  only  in  discourses  spoken  and  written  for  the  sake  of  in- 

•*27sD-E.  Cf.  Alcidamas,  27-28. 

"273E.  The  treatment  of  rhetoric  in  the  Laws  modifies  this.  Cf.  Grote, 
Plato,  IV,  p.  324  (1888). 

*"  276A.  Cf .  Alcidamas  27. 

'"276C, 

•*276D.    Cf.  Alcidamas  2,  and  35. 

••276E-277A. 

"'277B-C.  Modem  writers  on  the  art  of  rhetoric  are  dissemblers,  accord- 
ing to  Socrates,  and  conceal  the  very  admirable  knowledge  they  have  of 
the  soul;  but  they  will  not  write  artistically  until  they  speak  and  write  ac- 
cording to  the  method  based  on  the  knowledge  of  souls  (271). 

"258D. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         21 

struction  is  there  found  what  is  clear  and  perfect  and  worthy  of 
study/2 

If,  then,  those  who  write  have  composed  their  works  knowing 
the  truth,  and  if  they  are  able  to  defend  what  they  have  written,  and 
show  by  speaking  that  their  own  written  productions  are  inferior 
to  their  oral  efforts,  they  must  be  given  the  higher  name  of  "philos- 
opher." They  must  not  be  called  poets,  writers  of  speeches,  or 
compilers  of  laws.  Such  names  apply  only  to  those  who  have 
nothing  more  valuable  to  offer  than  what  they  have  written."^^  In 
this  last  class  Plato  places  Lysias. 

Of  course,  Plato  as  a  teacher  would  naturally  extol  dialectic. 
And  it  is  true  that  he  tries  to  make  his  own  written  compositions 
approach  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  method  he  believed  correct. 
The  dialogue  form  imitated  most  closely  the  method  of  oral  teach- 
ing.*^*  In  the  person  of  Socrates,  Plato's  ideas  and  beliefs  are  able  to 
defend  themselves.  They  are  not  like  the  Athenian  Orators,  who, 
we  are  told,  are  like  books,  and  able  neither  to  ask  nor  to  answer 
questions. ^^  But  it  seems  that  to  such  orators  as  Lysias  Plato  is 
unfair. ^^  Lysias  accomplished  a  great  deal  of  necessary  work  which 
Plato  would  not  have  done.  The  orator  described  in  Plato's 
Phaedrus,  a  perfectly  wise  man  who  knows  all  truth,^^  could  not 
possibly  exist,  and  even  if  he  could,  Plato  himself  tells  us  that  the 

'' 277B-278B. 

™  27SB-E. 

^*Cf.  Demetrius  of  Phalerum  (de  Elocut.  224)',  where  he  says  that  the 
dialogue  reproduces  an  extemporary  utterance. 

'^Protagoras  329A. 

'®0n  Plato  and  Lysias  see  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  Ep.  ad  Cn.  Pom- 
peium,  de  Platone.  According  to  Dionysius,  Plato  had  a  marked  feeling 
of  rivalry  against  Lysias. 

"Grote,  Plato,  Vol.  Ill,  42.  No  man  could  be  said  to  know,  according  to 
Plato,  who  could  not  conduct  and  sustain  a  Socratic  cross-examination. 

Grote  (Plato,  III,  44)  says:  "Plato  himself  seems  to  regard  this  ideal 
grandeur  of  the  orator  as  unattainable,  and  only  worth  aiming  at  for 
the  purpose  of  pleasing  the  gods,  not  with  any  view  to  practical  benefit." 

Later  (III,  48)  Grote  says:  "Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  (Ars 
Rhet.  p.  381)'  notices  the  severe  exigencies  which  Plato  here  imposes 
on  the  Rhetor,  remarking  that  scarcely  any  rhetorical  discourse  could 
be  produced  which  came  up  to  them.  The  defect  did  not  belong  to 
Lysias  alone,  but  to  all  other  rhetors  also.  Demosthenes  alone  (in  the 
opinion  of  Dionysius)  contrived  to  avoid  the  fault  because  he  imitated  Plato." 


22  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

people  would  never  listen  to  him.'^®  His  only  chance  of  being  heard 
would  be  inside  the  Academy  with  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Theatetus 
for  his  hearers.  Plato's  orator  is  a  splendid  ideal  orator,  not  a  human 
being,  with  a  human  being's  limitations.  Such  men  as  Lysias  and 
Antiphon  were  practical  orators,  whose  speeches  were  to  serve  a 
practical  purpose,  and  aid  ordinary  men,  not  intellectual  genuises.^^ 

In  depreciating  the  written  speech  Plato  is  not  quite  fair,  and 
it  is  very  natural  that  he  should  be  unfair.  Immeasurably  the 
superior  intellectually  of  any  man  of  his  time,  it  would  be  as  un- 
reasonable to  expect  him  to  come  down  to  the  level  of  an  orator 
who  would  write  a  clever  speech  for  a  given  sum,  as  it  would  to 
expect  Lysias  to  rise  to  the  ideal  orator  of  the  Phaedrus. 

To  take  Plato's  view  of  the  written  speech  as  typical  of  the  time, 
is  of  course  impossible,  but  that  a  prejudice  did  exist  against  written 
speeches  we  know  from  Isocrates.^^ 

Whether  Isocrates  ever  published  a  formal  handbook  of  the 
theory  of  rhetoric  is  doubtful.  He  himself  never  makes  mention  of 
it,    as    he    probably    would    have    done    had    he    written    one.®^ 

'"  Gorg.  513B ;  Rep.  495-496. 

™  Plato  is  thinking  of  all  types  of  literature ;  the  speech-writer,  of  rhetoric 
only, 

^Isocr.  V,  29.  Cf.  John  Quincy  Adams,  "Declamation,  Composition  and 
Delivery"  (Lectures  on  Oratory)  ;  also  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Orators,  p.  43  ff. 

"Aristotle  says  nothing  of  such  a  treatise.  The  Pseudo-Plutarch  (838F) 
says:  "Some  say  that  he  wrote  treatises  on  rhetoric;  others  hold  that  he 
employed  no  formal  method,  but  only  practice."  The  authenticity  of  the 
treatise  which  circulated  under  his  name  was  doubted  by  Quintilian  (II,  15, 
4)  : — "si  tamen  re  vera  ars  quae  circumfertur  eius  est."  cf.  also  III,  i, 
14.  Photius  likewise  doubt's  (Cod.  260)  :  Y^YacpEvai  be  avxbv  texvtiv 
'cTixoQixTiv  XiyovGiv,  riv  xai  fiiixEis  lapiev  xou  avbgoq  cjtiYQaqJOM-evTiv  Ttp  ovoiiaxi. 
ol  bk  auvaanriOEi  pici^^ov  r\  xExvti  XQr\Gao^ai  xaxa  xovg  XoYovg  xov  avSga 
cpaoi.  Plutarch  (Dem.  c.  5,  5)  speaks  of  TaoxQoixouc;  xExvag.  Cf.  also 
Cicero,  de  Invent.  II,  2,  7.    In  the  Brutus  (XII,  48),  Cicero  seems  to  imply  a 

formal  treatise: — "Isocrates se  ad  artes   componendas".     The 

reference  in  Ad  Atticum  II,  i,  i :  "mens  autem  liber  totum  Isocrati 
M-VQodrixiov",  need  not  necessarily  be  an  allusion  to  such  a  work.  See  also 
the  Scholiast  in  Apthon.  Progymn.  Cod.  VIII,  127B;  Scholiast  in  Hermog. 
(Spengel,  Art.  Script,  p.  160);  Sopater  in  Hermog.  (Sp.  p.  161);  Apsines 
p.  713  (Sp.  163)';  Tzetzes  Chil.  XI,  654;  IX,  935;  941;  Zozimus  p.  258,  137. 
There  is  a  learned  discussion  of  Manntius  on  the  subject  in  a  note  on  Cicero, 
Epist.  ad  Div.  I,  9.  He  conjectures  that  the  treatises  may  have  been  the  work 
of  Isocrates  of  Apollonia.    Another  explanation  is  to  understand  that  xsxvai 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         23 

Blass  ^^  shows  that  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  ascribe  the  al- 
leged work  to  Isocrates  himself  *'who  seems  only  to  have  devised 
special  rhetorical  artifices  called  Te/vai.^^  Notes  on  these  were  col- 
lected by  his  pupils  into  a  book  which  passed  under  his  name.  ®*  In 
the  extant  fragments  of  this  work  or  collection,  there  is  no  reference 
to  extemporary  speech,  nor  can  I  find  in  his  speeches  any  evidence 
that  he  advocated  it.^^  On  the  contrary,  all  indications  point  to  his 
having  held  the  opposite  view.  We  are  told  that  in  his  school  tech- 
nical rules  came  first.  Then  the  scholar  must  write  a  composition  in 

or  artes  mean  the  actual  speeches  of  Isocrates  (cf.  Rauchenstein,  Pane- 
gyricus  and  Areopagiticus,  ed.  V,  Introd.  p.  xxiv).  According  to  the  Pseudo- 
Plutarch  (837A),  Isocrates  made  use  of  certain  institutions  of  rhetoric  com- 
posed by  Theramenes,  which  have  since  borne  Bolon's  name. 

Cf.  M.  Sheehan,  De  fide  artis  rhetoricae  Isocrati  tributae.  (Bonn,  1901)  ; 
M.  Pantazes,  f|  'laoxgaxoug  'griToeixTi  texvti  oljio  twv  X6yo)v  auxov  niOQi^OM-EVY]. 
(Athens,  1906). 

"pp.  96-98. 

^Mahaffy,  Hist.  Class.  Gr.  Lit.  II,  p.  231.  Cf.  the  use  of  xE/vai  in 
^schines,  I,  117. 

"The  fragments  of  this  treatise  may  be  found  in  the  Benseler-Blass 
edition  of  Isocrates,  II,  275. 

^The  word  avxoaxsSia^Ei'v,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  occurs  but  twice  in 
Isocrates;  once  in  IX,  41,  where  it  means  to  act  on  the  spur  of  the  moment, 
and  once  in  XIII,  9,  in  a  taunt  against  certain  sophists  who,  while  they 
promise  to  make  their  followers  able  speakers,  write  worse  speeches  than 
certain  of  the  laymen  extemporize.  Compare  XIII,  16  ff.  avxooxeSiateiv, 
Latin,  extempore  facere,  or  dicere,  is  classed  as  specifically  Attic  by  the 
ancient  grammarians.  Eustathius  {ad.  Horn.  II.  XVI,  1081)  discusses  at 
length  axsfiiog  in  Homer,  and  its  later  derivatives. 

The  word  often  occurs  in  senses  allied  to  the  idea  of  practice  without 
suitable  preparation  (cf.  Bud.  p.  886)  :  yEsch.  Ill,  158;  Xen.  Mem.  Ill,  5,  21; 
Hell.  V,  2,  32. 

A  few  examples  of  the  verb  in  the  sense  of  extemporize,  and  of  the 
words  allied  to  it  follow.  An  exhaustive  list  is  of  course  impossible  here. 
In  most  cases  passages  used  in  the  text  have  been  omitted. 

auxoax£8idt£iv :  Plato,  Crat.  413D';  Apol.  20C;  Menex.  235C-D;  Lucian, 
Pseudol.  c.  5 ;  Athenaeus,  589B  (of  a  made-up  story)  ;  Demetrius,  de 
Elocut.  224;  Dion.  Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  25,  p.  200. 

ojtoaxefiia^eiv :  Suidas  djioaxe8id^ouoiv=£x  xov  Jiagaxuxovxog  Xiyovoi. 
Athenaeus,  III,  125C;  VIII,  337B ;  Ptolem.  Greg.  I,  18,  3;  Philost. 
Vit.  Apoll.  V,  p.  222,  26A. 

avxoaxeSiaaxrig :  Xen.  Rep.  Lac.  13,  5,  opposed  to  the  xExvixTig.  Cf.  Pol- 
lux, VI,  142. 


24  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

which  the  rules  he  had  learned  were  applied.     The  finished  pro- 
duction was  then  carefully  revised  by  Isocrates.^® 

Naturally  a  man  like  Isocrates,  who  was  incapacitated  for  the 
delivery  of  even  a  prepared  speech,  would  not  advocate  a  practice 
which  he  himself  could  not  follow.  Besides,  he  took  his  profession 
too  seriously  ^'^  to  trust  much  to  unpremeditated  speech.®^  His  aim 
was  to  produce  work  which  should  be  worthy  of  consideration 
among  all  people  and  for  all  time.®^  He  even  dignified  his  system  by 
the  name  of  "philosophy."  ^^     Rhetoric  he  regarded  as  a  sort  of 


auToax£8iaoTi>c6s :  Tragedy  and  comedy  were  at  first  mere  improvisation : 
Arist.  Poet.  IV,  12;  Alcid.  80,  11;  89,  7;  90,  18. 

avxooxebiao[ia:  Arist.  Poet.  IV,  6;  Pollux  VI,  142,  from  Plato  Comicus. 

auToaxESiaonog :  Alcid.  85,  5R. 

auToaxeSiaaxog :  Alcid.  84,  2;  16. 

auToaxEfiiog:  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  p.  204;  and  aiibioc,  de  Comp. 
Verb.  c.  18,  p.  123;  Ars.  Rhet.  I,  40.  II,  34;  Herodian,  IV,  7,  9;  Schol. 
Arist.  Eq.  539.  Dio.  Cass.  LXXIII,  i. 

auToaxTmaxiaxo? :  Phot.  Bibl.  Cod.  92,  p.  73,  25. 

auToaxeSicog :  Alex.  Rhet.  ;i8qi  Gym\iax.',  Aristeides,  keqi  Xoyov  JtoXit.  p. 
654. 

Closely  allied  to  avToaxeSiog  is  o.vxocpvi\c, :  Phot.  Bibl.  Cod.  LXI ;  LXVII  ; 
Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo  c.  7;  c.  16;  Demetrius  de  Elocut.  27;  30. 

Another  equivalent  is  avTOxd|38aXa :  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  14,  11,  with 
Cope's  note. 

'"Isocr.  XV,  i83ff;  Ep.  VI,  7ff.  He  lays  great  stress  on  the  art  of 
memorizing,  and  this  would  imply  that  the  pupils  may  have  committed  their 
speeches  to  memory  after  the  final  revision  by  the  teacher. 

*^Cf.  Isocr.  XV,  11;  XIII,  16-19. 

^The  orator's  position  in  ancient  times  was  one  of  great  responsibility. 
Lord  Brougham  (Vol.  IV,  p. 380)  says:  "The  Press  now  takes  the  place 
of  public  speaking  among  the  ancients.  The  orator  of  old  was  the  Parlia- 
mentary debater,  the  speaker  at  public  meetings,  the  preacher,  the  newspaper, 
the  published  sermon,  the  pamphlet,  the  volume  all  in  one."  Cf.  also  Jebb, 
p.  LXXII. 

~XV,  41,  44. 

'"I,  3;  III,  i;  IV,  10;  VIII,  145;  XI,  i;  XII,  263;  XIII,  i;  11;  14; 
XV,  10;  30;  50;  181;  205;  209;  215;  243;  247;  266;  270;  279;  Ep.  VI,  8;  also 
Quintilian,  II,  15,  33. 

On  the  philosophy  of  Isocrates  and  his  relation  to  the  Socratic  schools 
see  Spengel,  Isokrates  und  Platon  (Transactions  of  Munich  Academy,  1855, 
VII,  3,  731-69) ;  Philolog.  XIX  (1863)  594-8;  Bake,  J.,  de  aemulatione  Platonem 
inter  et  Isocratem  {Scholia  hypomnemata  III,  [1844]  27-47;  Susemihl,  F., 
de  Platonis  Phaedro  et  Isocratis  contra  sophistas  oratione  dissertatio  {Index 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         25 

mental  gymnastic,^^  and  to  one  who  practiced  it  three  things  were 
necessary:  natural  ability,  practice,  and  theoretical  instruction.^^ 
Even  among  the  qualities  included  under  the  head  of  natural  abili- 
ties, Isocrates  places  a  liking  for  work.^^  He  was  said  by  some  to 
have  employed  no  formal  method  of  teaching  in  his  school,  but  to 
have  relied  on  practice.^*    He  used  to  make  his  students  repeat  to 


Gryph;   1887)  ;  Holzner,   E, :   Platons  Phaedrus  und  die  Sophistenrede   des 
Isokrates   {Prager  Stud.   1894)  ;   Huit,   C,  Platon   et  Isocrate    {Revue  des 
Btudes  grecques,  1888,  49-60;  Thompson,  Phaedrus,  p.   147;    170-183;  Jebb, 
n,  3  ff.;  36  ff.;  SO-53;  Blass,  II,  27-38.    Grote,  Plato,  III,  36-7. 
•^XV,  181. 

"^XIII,  14-15;  XV,  i8iff.;  191  fip.;  Plato  Phaedrus,  269D.  How  far  natural 
ability,  practice,  and  theoretical  instruction  contribute  to  success  was  a 
commonplace  among  both  Greeks  and  Romans:  cf.  Plut.  de  Educat.  Puer. 
c.  4;  Cicero,  Archias,  i;  de  Or.  I,  4,  14;  I,  25,  113-115;  Horace,  A.  P.  408; 
Quint.  I,  Praef.  26-7,  11,  19;  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  33,  19,  with  Gudeman's  note. 
Auctor  ad  Herenn.  differs  slightly :  the  necessary  qualities  are  to  be  acquired 
(i)'  arte,  (2)  imitatione,  (3)  exercitatione.  Saintsbury  {Hist,  of  Crit.  I,  25) 
quotes  some  interesting  verses  of  the  comic  poet  Simulus  which  deal  with 
this  subject.  For  a  discussion  of  the  matter  see  Shorey,  $uaig,  Me^etTi, 
'EmaxT||LiTi.     {Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Assn.  Vol.  XL,  i85ff.). 

Sometimes  the  question  is  whether  art  or  nature  aids  most,  but  in  "art" 
are  included,  of  course,  both  practice  and  instruction;  Horace,  A.  P.  408: 
both  are  necessary;  each  aids  the  other.  The  conjunction  of  the  two  insures 
perfection:  Longin(?),  de  Suhlim.  XXXVI,  4  (compare  XXXII,  i).  Nature 
must  be  aided  by  art :  Quint.  IX,  4,  5.  Although  the  chief  power  rests  with 
nature,  the  highest  excellence  is  possible  only  when  nature  is  aided  by  art: 
Quint.  XI,  3,  II. 

^XV,  189  ff.  The  necessary  natural  abilities  are:  ability  to  invent,  ease 
of  understanding,  liking  for  work,  memory,  a  good  voice,  and  self-confidence 
in  public.  Compare  XV,  244;  Quint.  I,  praef.  27;  also  Emerson's  qualifi- 
cations for  an  orator  in  his  Essay  on  Eloquence,  and  Mathews,  Oratory  and 
Orators,  pp.  63-139. 

"*  Pseudo-Plut.  838F;  Photius,  Cod.  CCLX;  cf.  Isocr.  XV,  191;  Dion. 
Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  26  fin.;  Himerius,  Or.  XXIV;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  :^:^, 
149;  Arist.  Eth.  II,  i,  4;  Erasmus,  II,  col.  254d  (Leyden,  1703)'. 

Pliny,  while  admitting  that  practice  is  the  best  master  in  the  art  of  plead- 
ing, believes  that  it  should  not  be  carried  too  far  lest  it  produce  a  rash  as- 
surance rather  than  a  just  confidence  in  one's  powers  {Ep.  VI,  29,  4).  Com- 
pare Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  33 :  "Neque  enim  solum  arte  et  scientia,  sed  longe  magis 
facultate  et  usu  eloquentiam  contineri,  nee  tu  puto  abnues  et  hi  significare 
vultu  videntur." 


26  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

him  the  speeches  they  heard  dehvered  at  the  public  assemblies,®^ 
and  each  month  held  a  contest  among  them  at  which  a  crown  was 
given  to  the  victor.®^  Doubtless  his  aim  was  to  give  them  a  taste 
of  that  ''experience  which  is  the  main  secret  of  success  in  speak- 
ing." ®^  Since  he  was  himself  unable  to  appear  in  public  as  an  orator, 
he  made  style  the  object  of  his  care,®^  perhaps  being  convinced,  like 
Aristotle,  that  "written  orations  influence  more  by  means  of  their 
style  than  through  their  sentiment."  ®®  His  defense  of  his  speech  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Panegyriciis  is  a  rebuke  to  those  who  look  with 
scorn  upon  orations  which  are  carefully  worked  out.^^° 

Isocrates'  care  and  devotion  to  perfecting  his  style,  and  the 
praise  he  won  as  a  result  of  this,  and  likewise  his  contemptuous 
references  to  other  teachers  of  the  time  as  his  inferiors,  seem  to 
have  drawn  upon  him  the  dislike,  not  only  of  the  Sophists,  but  even 
of  Aristotle.^^^  Of  the  enmity  between  Isocrates  and  Aristotle,  if 
enmity  there  was,  we  have  little  means  of  judging,  but  the  case  for 
the  Sophists  is  admirably  set  forth  by  Alcidamas  in  the  first  formal 

•"^  Pseudo-Plut.  838F. 

•^Menander   (Rhet,  Gr.  Ill,  398  Sp.). 

""  Isocr.  XV,  296. 

""Quintilian  X,  i,  79:  "he  is  so  careful  in  composition  that  his  care  is 
even  censured." 

"'Arist.  Rhet  III,  i,  7. 

'~ii-i5. 

"^  The  almost  extravagant  praise  bestowed  on  Isocrates  by  the  ancients 
(such  as  that  found  in  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  3,  10;  II,  22,  94;  Brutus,  VIII,  32; 
Orator,  XIII,  40;  Quintilian,  III,  i,  14;  II,  8,  11)  is  said  to  have  angered 
Aristotle,  who,  in  his  indignation,  set  up  a  rival  school  in  which  rhetoric 
should  be  taught  more  philosophically  (Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  35,  141;  Tusc. 
Disp.  I,  4,  7;  de  Off.  I,  I,  4;  Orator,  XIII;  XIX,  62;  LI,  172;  Quint.  Ill,  i, 
14;  Numenius  ap.  Euseb.  Praep.  Evang.  XIV,  6,  9;  Sopater  and  Syrianus  ad 
Hermog.  {Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  298  Walz).  Cf.  Stahr,  Aristotelia,  I,  p.  63  ff.;  II, 
p.  44  ff. 

There  is  no  ill-will  toward  Isocrates  expressed  in  Aristotle's  references 
to  him  (Rhet.  I,  9,  38;  II,  23,  12;  III,  17,  lo-ii;  16;  and  probably  I,  9,  36; 
I,  2,  7;  III,  16,  4  (Cope),  but  see  Quintilian,  IV,  2,  32,  and  Dion.  Hal.  de 
Isocr.  18),  but  critics  believe  that  traces  of  this  rivalry  may  be  found  in 
Isocrates  (XII,  20;  XV,  258;  Ep.  V,  3.  Cf.  Spengel,  Trans.  Bavar.  Acad. 
Munich,  1851,  p.  16  ff.;  Teichmuller,  opposed  by  Blass  in  Bursian-Miiller's 
Jahr^sbericht  XXX,  235. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         2^ 

defense  of  extemporary  speech  extant,  the  treatise  entitled  Hspi 
Twv  Tou^  YpaxTOLx;  aoyou(;  Ypa^ovxwv  y^  xepi  ao^taKov/"" 

That  this  tract  is  a  manifesto,  not  perhaps  against  Isocrates 
personally,  but  against  his  school,  is  generally  agreed,^^^  although 
there  is  no  direct  reference  to  him  in  the  treatise.  Alcidamas,  being 
not  only  the  pupil,^^*  but  in  the  strictest  sense  the  follower  of 
Gorgias,  had  for  his  object  the  cultivation  of  eloquence  that  was  in 
part,  at  least,  extemporary.  The  incessant  care,  the  constant  re- 
vision, and  the  intense  devotion  to  style  of  Isocrates,  due  in  the  be- 
ginning, doubtless,  to  his  poor  voice  and  lack  of  self-confidence,  were 

"*  That  there  existed  some  historical  connection  between  Plato's  Phaedrus, 
the  xaxd  xtbv  ooqpiaxcov  of  Isocrates,  and  Alcidamas'  attack  on  written 
speeches,  is  practically  certain,  but  any  attempt  to  determine  what  it  was, 
brings  up  the  vexed  question  of  the  relative  dates  of  the  Platonic  and  Iso- 
cratean  treatises,  and  thus  opens  an  endless  field  for  discussion. 

The  Phaedrus  may  be  either  earlier  or  later  than  the  work  of  Isocrates, 
according  as  one  regards  Phaedrus  269D  as  an  idea  imitated  and  expanded  in 
Isocrates  XIII,  14-15,  or  as  Plato's  summary  of  the  orator's  entire  doctrine. 
Either  view  can  be  made  to  seem  probable. 

If  we  admit  the  obvious  parody  of  the  Pan^gyricus  (8)'  in  Phaedrus 
267A  (but  see  Siiss,  p.  20),  and  that  of  Isocrates  XIII,  17,  in  the  Gorgias 
(463A)',  we  get  the  sequence,  xaxa  xcov  aoqpiaxcov,  Gorgias,  Panegyricus, 
Phaedrus. 

Turning  to  Alcidamas,  we  find  a  passage  (12)  which  may  be  either  a 
challenge  to  Isocrates  which  he  answers  in  Panegyricus  11,  or  it  may  be 
Alcidamas'  reply  to  that  passage.  Blass  thinks,  and  his  view  seems  prob- 
able, that  the  Panegyricus  is  a  reply  to  Alcidamas.  If,  then,  we  admit  the 
parody  of  Isocrates  in  the  Phaedrus,  the  treatises  would  appear  in  the  order, 
Alcidamas,  Panegyricus,  Phaedrus.  If  one  holds  the  belief  that  the  Alcidamas 
passage  is  an  answer  to  Panegyricus  11,  Alcidamas  would  be  placed  after  the 
Panegyricus. 

Cf .  Siiss,  p.  30  ff . ;  Gercke,  Hermes  XXXII,  341  ff. ;  Rhein.  Mus.  LIV, 
404  ff.;  Hubik,  Weiner  Studien  XXIII,  234  ff. 

The  resemblances  in  Alcidamas  to  Plato  and  Isocrates  are  not  sufficient 
to  date  him  with  certainty  in  relation  to  either  author.  Compare  Alcid.  2  and 
35  with  Phaedrus  276D;  Alcid.  27-28  with  Phaedrus  275D,  and  Isocrates 
XIII,  10. 

'"" Christ,  p.  229;  Blass  II,  ZV  ff-;  Mahaffy,  II,  245;  Jebb,  II,  428.  See 
also  Tzetzes,  Chil.  XI,  672.  The  authenticity  of  the  treatise  is  doubted  by 
Sauppe,  O.  A.  II,  156,  but  Blass  (II,  327)  conclusively  proves  the  arguments 
against  it  inadequate. 

^^ Quintilian,  III,  i,  10;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Gorgias;  Alcidamas;  Eud.  Aug. 
XCIX;  Athen.  XIII,  592C;  Tzetzes,  Chil.  XI,  746.  On  Alcidamas  see  Blass, 
11,^  364,  and  Vahlen,  Der  Rhetor  Alkidamas,  Vienna,  1864. 


2!8  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

directly  at  variance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Sophists.  Their  object 
was  "to  teach  methodically  the  art  of  saying,  under  all  circumstances, 
something  which  would  pass  muster  at  the  time."^^^  An  additional 
motive  for  the  attack  of  Alcidamas  is  suggested  by  the  tradition  that 
Isocrates  had  once  been  the  pupil  of  Gorgias.^*^^ 

There  is  but  slight  evidence  on  which  to  base  the  belief  that 
Alcidamas  wrote  a  treatise  on  rhetoric,^^^  but  his  theory  is  set  forth 
in  detail  in  the  extant  essay  "On  the  Sophists/' 

The  opening  thesis  is  that  those  who  are  mere  composers  of 
cleverly  written  speeches  "have  missed  the  greater  part  both  of 
rhetoric  and  philosophy,  and  should  rather  be  called  poets  than 
sophists."  ^^^  Alcidamas  by  no  means  despises  writing,  but  believes 
that  it  should  be  practiced  as  a  ^'parergon."  His  case  is  supported 
by  a  series  of  clearly  stated,  but  not  logically  connected  arguments. 
In  the  first  place,  writing  is  easier  than  speaking.^^^  To  speak 
fittingly  at  a  moment's  notice,  and  with  speed  and  ease,  about  what- 
ever subject  comes  up  for  consideration;  to  make  a  speech  appro- 
priate to  the  crisis  which  calls  for  speech,  and  pleasing  to  one's  audi- 
ence, is  a  talent  which  does  not  belong  to  every  man,  nor  is  it  the 
result  of  any  chance  system  of  training.^^^  But  to  write  with  plenty 
of  time  at  one's  disposal,  to  correct  at  one's  leisure,  to  place  before 
one  the  treatises  of  preceding  sophists  and  gather  arguments  there- 
from, to  imitate  things  which  have  been  well  said,  to  correct  one's 
writing  and  make  it  clear,  partly  through  consultation  with  friends, 
and  partly  by  long  meditation,  this  is  a  task  easy  even  for  the  un- 
trained.^^^ 

And  so,  since  it  is  easier  to  write  than  to  speak,  the  ability  to 
write,  naturally  is  held  in  less  esteem.^^^ 

^"'Jebb,  11,40. 

^°®Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  i;  cf,  p.  ii6  n.,  205.  If  not  a  pupil  of  Gorgias, 
Isocrates  had  at  any  rate  many  Gorgian  traits. 

*"'  Plut.  Dem.  c.  5,  5. 

*'"i-2;  12.  Both  Plato  and  Isocrates  speak  of  the  writer  of  a  finished 
prose  production  as  a  ''poet":  cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  236D :  dvadov  jtoirixriv  (of 
Lysias) ;  234E;  Euthyd.  305B;  Legg.  IX,  858C.  Isocrates,  XV,  192;  XIII,  15. 

*°*Cf.  Isocrates,  IV,  11,  where  he  says  that  the  master  of  elaborate  dic- 
tion will  also  be  able  to  write  in  the  simple  style.    Compare  XV,  49. 


oil 


4-5.    Cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  278D. 


"'S. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         29 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  man  who  is  able 
to  speak  well  will  be  able  to  write  well,  but  no  one  will  be  able  to 
speak  as  a  result  of  his  ability  to  write.  For  the  speakers  have 
learned  the  more  difficult  art,  and  so  can  readily  turn  to  the  simpler, 
as  one  who  has  been  used  to  heavy  burdens,  can  easily  carry  lighter 
ones.  But  the  writers  have  trained  themselves  in  the  easier  pursuit, 
and  can  no  more  perform  the  harder  task,  than  can  the  one  who  has 
been  used  to  Hgfit  burdens  carry  a  heavy  weight.  So  the  skillful 
extempore  speaker,  if  time  and  leisure  be  given  him,  will  be  a  better 
writer  of  speeches,  but  the  one  who  has  spent  his  time  in  writing,  if 
he  turn  to  extempore  speech,  will  be  filled  with  perplexity  and  con- 
fusion.^^^ 

Here  Alcidamas  shifts  his  point  bf  view,  and  from  this  point  on, 
discusses  the  advantage  that  the  extempore  speaker  has  with  an 
audience  over  the  man  who  depends  on  a  written  speech. 

M  daily  life  there  are  many  opportunities  for  the  speaker,  but 
few  for  the  writer.  For  often  a  written  speech  cannot  be  brought 
to  perfection  until  the  opportunity  for  it  has  passed.^^*  Besides, 
elaborately  worked  out  compositions  fill  the  minds  of  the  hearers 
with  distrust  and  envy,  and  therefore  writers  imitate  the  style  of 
extempore  speakers,  and  are  thought  to  write  best  when  they  write 
least  like  written  speeches.^^^  Therefore  the  method  of  training 
which  leads  to  ability  in  extempore  speaking  ought  most  to  be 
honored.  Some  recommend  writing  part  of  the  speech  and  ex- 
temporizing the  rest;  but  to  this,  too,  there  are  objections,  for  the 
result  will  be  a  production  in  which  part  appears  mean  and  poor  in 
comparison  with  the  accurate  finish  of  the  rest.^^® 

"^6-7. 

"*8-ii.  It  is  said  of  Gladstone:  "Mr.  Gladstone  never  wrote  a  line  of 
his  speeches,  and  some  of  his  most  successful  ones  have  been  made  in  the 
heat  of  debate  and  necessarily  without  preparation."  (Quoted  by  Hardwicke, 
History  of  Oratory  and  Orators,  p.  289;  cf.  also  Morley's  Life  of  Glad- 
stone). 

*^^  12-13.  Nowadays  people  loosely  call  a  speech  extemporary  if  it  is  not 
actually  read  from  a  manuscript.  There  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  tacit  conspiracy 
between  author  and  audience  so  to  regard  a  speech  unless  it  is  openly  read. 
The  modern  feeling  is  that  great  oratory  ought  to  be  extemporary.  Ac- 
cording to  Jebb  {Introd.  LXXXII  ff.)  the  Hebraic  basis  of  Christian  edu- 
cation is  responsible  for  this. 

"°  14.  Cicero  and  Quintilian  held  exactly  the  opposite  view :  Cicero,  de  Or. 
I,  33,  150  ff;  Quint.  X,  3,  2;  I,  I,  28. 


30  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IX    ANTIQUITY 

'  The  one  who  professes  to  teach  others  must  not  be  a  man  who 
can  display  his  knowledge  if  he  has  tablet  or  manuscript  ^^^  in  hand, 
but  if  deprived  of  these  is  no  better  than  the  untrained.  He  must 
not  be  one  who,  if  time  be  g^ven  him,  can  produce  a  speech,  but  if 

Lord  Brougham,  Inaugural  Address  (Vol.  Ill,  93)  says:  **We  may  rest 
assured  that  the  highest  reaches  of  the  art,  and  without  any  necessarj'  sacri- 
fice of  natural  effect,  can  only  be  attained  by  him  who  well  considers  and 
maturely  prepares  and  oftentimes  sedulously  corrects  and  refines  his  oration. 
Such  preparation  is  quite  consistent  with  the  introduction  of  passages 
prompted  by  the  occasion,  nor  will  t}i€  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other 
he  perceptible  in  the  execution  of  a  practiced  master.  I  have  knovsTi  attentive 
and  skillful  hearers  completely  deceived  in  this  matter,  and  taking  for  ex- 
temporaneous, passages  which  pre\nously  existed  in  a  manuscript,  and  were 
pronounced  without  the  variation  of  a  particle  or  a  pause.  Thus,  too,  we  are 
told  by  Cicero  in  one  of  his  epistles,  that  having  to  make,  in  Pompey'.«; 
presence,  a  speech,  after  Crassus  had  very  unexpectedly  taken  a  particular 
line  of  argument,  he  exerted  himself  and,  it  appears,  successfully,  in  a  mar- 
vellous manner,  mightily  assisted  in  what  he  said  extempore,  by  his  habit  of 
rhetorical  preparation,  and  introducing  skillfully,  as  the  inspiration  of  the 
moment,  all  his  favorite  commonplaces,  with  some  of  which,  we  gather  from 
a  good-humored  joke  at  his  o\^ti  expense,  Crassus  had  interfered  (Ad  Att,  I, 
14)/' 

If,  however,  we  believe  in  the  rules  of  avoidance  of  hiatus,  regularity  of 
clauses  in  a  period,  etc.,  to  which  critics  have  called  attention,  we  must  believe 
one  of  two  things  in  the  case  of  the  carefully  finished  productions  which  the 
Greeks  have  left  us ;  either  that  all  such  extemporarj-  additions  were  omitted 
from  the  published  speech,  or,  what  is  more  likelj-,  that  such  additions  were 
carefully  revised  and  polished  before  the  speech  received  publication. 

^  yQa4i\iaT£low  r\  3i3>a'ov.  3i3>iov  here  clearly  must  mean  the  speaker's 
manuscript  copy  of  his  speech.  He  has  memorized  his  oration,  but  lest  his 
memory  fail,  he  brings  \\4th  him  either  a  tablet  containing  notes  (YQanM^axEiov), 
or  a  copy  of  his  speech  to  which  to  refer  (PiPXiov).  Were  it  not  for 
YQamxaTEiov,  we  might  take  PipJwiov  to  mean  note-book  as  it  does  in  Ps.  Dem. 
LXI,  2.  As  it  is,  it  seems  necessarj-  to  give  the  word  the  other  interpreta- 
tion. In  the  Phaedrus  (228B)  3i3?iov  is  the  written  manuscript  of  Lysias' 
speech  which  Phaedrus  consults  and  learns  by  heart  In  Aristophanes'  Birds 
(.973^  977,  980,  986,  989)  PiPXiov  is  the  oracle-monger's  copy  of  the  collec- 
tion of  oracles  which  was  referred  to  for  checking  his  quotations.  Compare 
Isocrates  V,  21,  where  Isocrates  calls  the  written  speech  he  sends  to  Philip 

TO   Pl3W0V. 

Mr.  H.  Hayman  (Journal  of  Philol.  VIII,  123-5)  has  pointed  out  that 
the  use  of  writing-tablets  to  assist  the  memory  was  so  well  established  in 
^schylus'  time  that  they  furnish  a  rather  trite  metaphor  in  Prom.  V.  789; 
Coeph.  450;  Eumen.  275. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IX  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         3 1 

he  must  speak  on  the  sudden,  is  voiceless,  and  while  he  professes-to 
teach  the  art  of  speaking,  has  himself  no  power  to  speakj.^^* 

Writing,  according  to  Alcidamas,  is  a  hindrance  rather  than  a 
help  to  speaking.  The  mind  of  the  writer  who  tries  extemporary 
speech  moves  like  a  captive  newly  freed  from  long-worn  bonds, 
whose  limbs,  even  when  at  liberty,  move  in  the  same  way  in  which 
they  were  forced  to  move  when  bound.^^* 

Furthermore,  it  is  difficult  to  learn  and  remember  a  written 
speech,  and  disgraceful  to  forget  before  an  audience  what  one  has 
learned.'-''  The  man  who  uses  written  speeches  must  remember  the 
very  words  and  syllables  of  his  text;  the  extempore  speaker  need 
only  have  the  arguments  clearly  in  mind.^-^    If  one  of  these  should 

"*I5.  For  somewhat  the  same  idea  see  Isocr.  XIII,  9;  Plato,  Protag.  329A. 

"*  16-17.  Plutarch,  de  Educat.  Puer.  9,  uses  the  same  figure.  Plutarch  ad- 
vocates no  extemporary  speech  until  the  child  reaches  man's  estate:  cf.  p.  47. 

^This.  according  to  M.  Sarcey  {Recollections  of  Middle  Life,  trans. 
Gary)  pp.  lo-ii,  was  the  fate  of  Gaston  de  Saint  Valry  who  forgot  his  lec- 
ture, lost  his  way  among  his  notes,  and  so  made  a  failure  of  his  performance. 

There  is  still  a  prejudice  against  speeches  which  are  clearly  learned  by 
heart.    See  the  epigram  on  Ward: 

"\\ard  has  no  heart,  they  say,  but  I  deny  it: 
He  has  a  heart,  and  gets  his  speeches  by  it." 

(Bartlett:  Familiar  Quotations,  p.  456). 

^  This  was  M.  Sarcey's  method  in  delivering  a  lecture  {Recollections  of 
Middle  Life,  p.  ^y).  But  consider  M.  Sarcey's  advice  to  a  lecturer  (p.  156)  : 
"You  have  possessed  your  memor>'  of  the  themes  from  the  development  of 
which  the  lecture  must  be  formed;  pick  out  one  from  the  pile,  the  first  at 
hand,  or  the  one  you  have  most  at  heart,  which  for  the  moment  attracts  you 
most,  and  act  as  if  you  were  before  the  public;  improvise  upon  it  Yes, 
force  yourself  to  improvise.  Do  not  trouble  yourself  about  badly  constructed 
phrases,  nor  appropriate  words — go  your  way.  Push  on  to  the  end  of  the 
development,  and  the  end  once  reached,  recommence  the  same  exercise, 
recommence  it  three  times,  four  times,  ten  times,  without  tiring.  You  will 
have  some  trouble  at  first.  The  development  will  be  short  and  meagre; 
little  by  little  around  the  principal  theme  there  will  group  themselves  acces- 
sor},- ideas,  or  convincing  facts,  or  pat  anecdotes  that  will  extend  and  en- 
rich it.  Do  not  stop  in  this  work  until  you  notice  that  in  thus  taking  up 
the  same  theme  you  fall  into  the  same  development,  and  that  the  develop- 
ment with  its  turns  of  language  and  order  of  phrases  fixes  itself  in  your 
memory." 

This  is  certainly  a  close  approach  to  verbal  preparation.  The  method 
of  Alcidamas'  extemporary  speaker  may  have  been  similar. 


2^2  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

escape  him/^^  he  can  pass  to  the  next  and  still,  since  the  style  of 
his  speech  is  loose,  leave  no  break.  If  he  remembers  it  later,  he  can 
easily  prove  the  point  then,  but  the  one  who  delivers  a  written 
speech,  is  thrown  into  utter  confusion  if  he  forgets.^^^ 

The  minds  of  the  audience,  too,  are  more  favorably  disposed  to 
the  extempore  speaker/^*    The  man  who  has  written  out  his  speech, 


M.  Sarcey's  preparation  was  quite  as  thorough  as  any  verbal  preparation : 
cf.  pp.  47,  49,  51,  146,  147,  and  Chapter  IX,  {How  a  Lecture  is  Prepared), 
and  as  a  result  of  it  he  gradually  acquired  great  facility  (p.  85).  So  well  did 
he  know  his  lectures  that  they  were  easily  written  out  afterwards  if  needed 

(p.  195). 

W.  D.  Howells  says  of  Mark  Twain :  "It  was  his  custom  always  to  think 
out  his  speeches,  mentally  wording  them,  and  then  memorizing  them  by  a 
peculiar   system  of  mnemonics  which  he  had   invented"  {My  Mark   Twain 

p.  59). 

On  the  problem  of  after-dinner  speeches,  etc.,  see  Sears,  The  Occasional 
Address. 

The  orator  Alcidamas  praises  may  have  been  such  an  one  as  Sears 
{History  of  Oratory,  p.  398)  says  Wiendell  Phillips  was :  "He  usually  spoke 
without  notes,  as  he  composed  his  speeches  without  pen.  This  does  not 
mean  without  preparation.  He  was  always  preparing  and  storing  his  memory 
with  facts,  pursuing  fallacies,  linking  chains  of  argument  that  seemed  to  have 
no  weakest  link,  gathering  anecdotes,  culling  illustrations  that  found  their 
own  place  when  and  where  they  were  wanted.  Above  all,  for  years,  he 
cultivated  the  habit  of  thinking  on  the  platform  and  off,  and  was  never  so 
effective  as  when  apparently  the  most  extemporaneous.  His  own  explanation 
seems  simple  enough:  "The  chief  thing  I  aim  at  is  to  master  my  subject. 
Then  I  earnestly  try  to  get  the  audience  to  think  as  I  do." 

^According  to  Quintilian,  some  object  to  partition  of  matter  in  speeches 
for  this  same  reason,  but  Quintilian  says  that  nothing  of  this  kind  can  happen 
except  to  one  who  is  utterly  deficient  in  ability,  or  who  brings  to  his  pleading 
nothing  settled  or  premeditated  (IV,  5,  2). 

^  18-21.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  in  the  Greek  courts  the 
general  practice  was  neither  to  extemporize  solely  nor  absolutely  to  be 
prepared.    Compare  Quintilian,  X,  7,  1-4. 

^^  Compare  Lord  Brougham's  remarks  (Vol.  Ill,  92)  :  "I  am  now  re- 
quiring not  merely  great  preparation  while  the  speaker  is  learning  his  art, 
but  after  he  has  completed  his  education.  The  most  splendid  effort  of  the 
most  mature  orator  will  be  always  finer  for  being  elaborated  with  much 
care.  There  is,  no  doubt,  a  charm  in  extemporaneous  elocution,  derivied 
from  the  appearance  of  artless,  unpremeditated  effusion,  called  forth  by  the 
occasion,  and  so  adapting  itself  to  its  exigencies,  which  may  compensate 
for  the  manifold  defects  incident  to  this  kind  of  composition :    that  which  is 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH   IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         33 

Speaks  either  too  long  or  not  long  enough  to  suit  his  audience.  The 
extemporary  speaker  can  adjust  the  length  of  his  speech  to  the  desire 
of  his  hearers/^^ 

The  extempore  speaker  can  take  advantage  of  all  unforeseen 
points  which  appear  in  the  actual  progress  of  the  contest.  He  can 
catch  an  argument  from  his  adversary  and  turn  it  to  his  own  ad- 
vantage. The  one  who  is  used  to  written  speeches,  must  either 
neglect  all  these  opportunities,  or  else  throw  his  whole  oration  into 
confusion  and  destroy  its  symmetry.^^® 

Alcidamas,  then,  would  not  call  these  productions  speeches,  but 
rather  phantoms  and  shapes  and  imitations  of  speeches.  Like  the 
statues  of  men  and  the  paintings  of  living  creatures,  they  give  some 
pleasure  to  the  sight,  but  are  of  no  advantage  to  man  in  his  time  of 
need.  At  a  crisis  they  are  motionless  and  voiceless  like  the  statues, 
but  extempore  speech  is  vital  and  like    to  the  living  creature.^^'' 

At  this  point  Alcidamas  stops  to  justify  himself  and  to  explain 
why  he  who  so  praises  extemporary  speech  has  descended  to  writ- 
inspired  by  the  unforeseen  circumstances  of  the  moment,  will  be  of  necessity- 
suited  to  those  circumstances  in  the  choice  of  the  topics,  and  pitched  in  the 
tone  of  the  execution,  to  the  feelings  upon  which  it  is  to  operate.  These  are 
great  virtues :  it  is  another  to  avoid  the  besetting  vice  of  modern  oratory, 
the  overdoing  everything,  the  exhaustive  method,  which  an  offhand  speaker 
has  no  time  to  fall  into,  and  he  accordingly  will  take  only  the  grand  and 
effective  view :  nevertheless,  in  oratorical  merit,  such  effusions  must  needs 
be  very  inferior;  much  of  the  pleasure  they  produce  depends  upon  the  hearer's 
surprise  that  in  such  circumstances  anything  can  be  delivered  at  all,  rather 
than  upon  his  deliberate  judgment  that  he  has  heard  anything  very  excellent 
in  itself." 

^^  22-23. 

^^24-26.  Alcidamas  assumes  too  much.  Any  speaker  with  a  reasonable 
amount  of  practice  could  make  such  additions  to  his  speech. 

See  what  M.  Sarcey  says  of  Deschanel :  "Did  he  read?  Did  he  write? 
Did  he  extemporize?  I  believe,  indeed,  that  he  employed  in  turn  all  three 
processes  which  he  knew  how  to  mould  into  a  harmonious  whole"   (p.  53). 

Jebb  (1,37)  thinks  that  Alcidamas  means  in  this  section  that  the  intro- 
duction of  commonplaces  makes  the  speech  uneven.  The  unevenness  results 
from  the  difference  between  the  prepared  and  the  extemporary  portions  of  the 
speech.  The  prepared  portions  need  not  necessarily  be  commonplaces.  The 
speech  would  seem  "patch-work:"  Horace  A.  P.  15;  compare  Quint.  XII, 
9,  15  ff. 

^'  27-28.  Cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  275-276. 


34  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

ing.  He  does  not,  he  says,  utterly  depreciate  writing.  He  has  written 
his  treatise,  in  the  first  place,  in  order  to  show  that  writing  should 
be  practiced  as  a  secondary  consideration,  and  secondly  that  he  might 
show  those  people  who  pride  themselves  on  their  ability  as  writers 
that  after  a  little  labor  he  can  far  surpass  them.^^*  Writing  he  be- 
lieves useful  to  a  certain  extent.  It  is  difficult  to  remember  one's 
extemporaneous  speeches  and  so  tell  whether  one  is  improving  in 
the  art  or  not.  In  written  speeches  one  can  see  plainly  the  growth 
of  the  soul.  Besides,  he  is  anxious  to  leave  some  memorial  of  him- 
self behind. ^^^ 

"®  29-31.  It  was  perhaps  with  this  purpose  in  view  that  Alcidamas  wrote 
his  pamphlet  in  defense  of  the  new  Messene  (Aristotle,  Rhet.  I,  13,  3,  and 
schol.;  II,  23,  I,  see  Vahlen,  p.  491  ff.,  and  especially  504  ff.),  which  may  be 
contrasted  with  Isocrates'  Archidamus  (Curtius  [Ward],  Hist.  Gr.  V,  173)'. 

Whenever  an  orator  wished  to  publish  what  we  should  now  call  a  pamph- 
let, he  did  not  put  it  in  the  form  of  an  essay,  but  in  that  of  a  speech  pur- 
porting to  be  delivered  on  a  real  occasion.  Jebb,  II,  45  says :  "Since  the  end 
of  the  fifth  century  B.  C.  a  literature  of  political  pamphlets  had  been  coming 
into  existence;  writing  was  now  recognized  as  a  mode  of  influencing  public 
opinion  on  the  affairs  of  the  day.  Thrasymachus  pleaded  for  the  Larisaeans, 
as  Isocrates  for  the  Plataeans,  in  a  rhetorical  pamphlet;  in  the  same  way 

Isocrates  attacked,  and  Alcidamas  defended,  the  new  Messene 

To  Isocrates  belongs  the  credit  of  trying  to  raise  the  dignity  and  worth  of 
this  intermittent  journalism." 

On  Thrasymachus'  pamphlet  cf.  Sauppe,  O.  A.   II,   162. 

In  Rome  funeral  speeches  were  used  for  this  purpose.  Cato's  death  at 
Utica  called  forth  quite  a  literature  of  its  own.  Cicero  (Plut.  Caes.  c.  54; 
Cic.  c.  39;  Cic.  ad.  Att.  XII,  40,  i ;  XIII,  27,  i ;  XIII,  46,  2;  Orat,  X,  35;  Tac. 
Ann.  TV,  34),  M.  Brutus  (Cic.  ad  Att.  XIII,  46,  2;  XII,  21,  i),  M.  Fadius 
Gallus  (Cic.  ad  Fam.  VII,  24,  2;  25,  i),  and  Munatius  (Plut.  Cat.  Min.  c.  37; 
cf.  c.  25;  Val.  Max.  IV,  3,  2),  wrote  in  praise  of  him,  and  against  him  wrote 
Hirtius  (Cic.  ad  Att.  XII,  40,  i ;  41,  4;  44,  i ;  45,  3;  47,  3),  Caesar  (Suet. 
lul.  56;  luv.  VI,  338;  Plut.  Caes.  c.  3;  c.  54;  Cic.  39;  PHn.  A^.  H.  VII,  117; 
Plut.  Cat.  Min.  36;  52;  54;  Plin.  Ep.  Ill,  12;  Cic.  ad.  Att.  XIII,  50,  i ;  51,  i ; 
Top.  c.  25,  95;  Quint.  Ill,  7,  29),  Metellus  Scipio  (Plut.  Cat  Min.  57),  and 
later  Augustus  (Suet.  Aug.  85). 

On  the  pamphlets  to  which  the  death  of  Cato  gave  rise  cf.  Wartmann, 
Leben  des  Cato  von  Utica  (Zur.  1858),  145. 

So  there  were  "laudationes  Porciae"  by  Cicero  {ad  Att.  XIII,  2)7,  3;  48,  2) 
which  was  carefully  revised,  M.  Varro,  and  Lollius  (Cic.  ad  Att.  XIII,  48,  2). 

On  the  possibility  that  the  "laus  Catonis"  of  Cicero  may  have  been,  par- 
tially at  least,  in  verse,  see  Philologus,  XLII,  181. 

"'*32.  "Res  scripta  manet." 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH   IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         35 

The  orator  may  use  forethought  as  regards  his  argument  and 
arrangement ;  ^^^  the  words  should  come  at  the  inspiration  of  the 
moment.^^^  The  accuracy  ^^-  of  the  writer  will  not  compensate  for 
the  opportunities  he  will  lose.  Therefore  the  one  who  wishes  to  be 
called  a  clever  orator  rather  than  a  competent  maker  of  speeches, 

""But  compare  Longinus,  Ars  Rhet.   (Rivet.  Gr.  I,  318,  14,  Sp.) 

^'^^  Quintilian  (IX,  4,  3)  says  that  if  only  language  such  as  happens  to 
present  itself  is  to  be  used,  the  whole  art  of  oratory  is  at  an  end,  and  this 
is  true  in  a  certain  sense.  However,  Alcidamas'  idea  may  not  have  differed 
so  very  much  from  the  "praeceptum  paene  divinum"  attributed  to  Cato 
(lulius  Victor  Ars.  Rhet.  p.  197,  O),  "rem  tene,  verba  sequentur."  This  idea  is 
often  found  as  well  in  modern  writers  as  in  those  of  ancient  times:  Cicero 
de  Or.  I,  6,  20;  II,  34,  146;  III,  3,  125;  Orat.  XXXIV,  119;  de  Fin.  Ill,  5; 
Horace,  A.  P.  40-41 ;  311 ;  Quint.  VIII,  praef.  21 ;  28-30;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr. 
c.  13 ;  Seneca,  Cont.  Ill,  Proem. 

Blair,  Lecture  XIX  (Vol.  II,  51).  Montaigne  (I,  195,  ed.  Cotton)  says: 
"Let  but  our  pupil  be  well  furnished  with  things,  words  will  follow  but  too 
fast;  he  will  pull  them  after  him  if  they  do  not  voluntarily  follow." 

Milton  says :  "True  eloquence  I  find  to  be  none  but  the  serious  and  hearty 
love  of  truth;  and  that  whose  mind  soever  is  fully  possessed  with  a  fervent 
desire  to  know  good  things,  and  with  the  dearest  charity  to  infuse  the 
knowledge  of  them  into  others,  when  such  a  man  would  speak,  his  words, 
by  what  I  can  express,  like  so  many  nimble  and  airy  servitors,  trip  about  him 
at  command,  and  in  mell-ordered  files,  as  he  would  wish,  fall  aptly  into  their 
places." 

"^axQiPsia.  The  word  is  used  of  the  exactness  and  high  finish  of  style 
of  written  speeches.  Cf.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  12,  5  (with  Cope's  note), 
Philostratus  {Vit.  Soph.  II,  9,  p.  581)  contrasts  it  with  to  axeSidteiv.  Cf. 
also  Grant's  note  on  Aristotle,  Eth.  Nic.  I,  7,  18. 

The  word  seems  to  be  used  at  times  in  two  different  senses : 

1.  As  opposed  to  mere  slovenliness  and  effusiveness  of  style:  accurate 
and  clear;  Isocr.  V,  4:  dxQiPoig  xai  xadagw?;  V,  155;  cf.  also  Plato,  Phaedr. 
234E. 

2.  Of  a  highly  finished  style  as  opposed  to  one  which  avoids  ornament, 
like  that  of  Lysias,  for  example,  which  is  yet  a  highly  finished  style  from 
one  point  of  view.  Isocrates  uses  it  in  this  sense  in  IV,  11,  where  axQiPcbg, 
as  contrasted  with  aiikihc,  means  dn:i6Eixxix(0(;.    Cf.  also  IX,  7^. 

The  axQiPeia  of  the  Alcidamas  passage  might,  of  course,  be  the  simple 
accuracy  of  the  Lysias  type  of  speech,  but  if  we  admit  that  Alcidamas  had 
Isocrates  in  mind  as  he  wrote,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  word  meant  for 
him  the  high  finish  of  the  emSeixxixog  Xoyo?.  In  the  Pseudo-Dem.  Erotica, 
61,  2,  there  is  the  same  contrast :  orations  for  oral  delivery  are  to  be  written 
in  a  simple  style  (djiXcog),  like  what  one  would  say  on  the  spur  of  the 
moment;  those  which  are  designed  for  a  permanence  should  be  emSeixTixo)?. 


36  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

who  desires  rather  to  be  able  to  seize  opportunities  than  to  be  an 
accurate  user  of  words,  and  prefers  the  good-will  of  his  audience  to 
their  envy,  will  make  the  ability  to  speak  extempore  the  object  of  his 
care,  and  regard  writing  as  an  amusement  and  a  secondary  consider- 
ation/^^ 

This  treatise  of  Alcidamas  in  its  secondary  arguments,  in  some 
ways  strikingly  anticipates  the  views  held  by  the  Roman  writers  on 
rhetoric,  although  on  the  main  point  they  are  opposed.  He  views  the 
question  from  the  common-sense  standpoint  and  his  individual  con- 
clusions are  sound.  Unfortunately,  however,  Alcidamas  has  di- 
rected his  polemic  against  two  distinct  classes  of  people,  to  neither 
of  which  all  of  his  arguments  apply.  Part  of  his  criticisms  are  aimed 
at  those  who  write  speeches  to  be  read,  and  part  at  those  orators  who 
are  dependent  on  their  manuscripts  for  their  words. 

If  the  treatise  is  directed  against  Isocrates,  as  critics  believe,^^* 
it  ought  to  deal  primarily  with  those  writers  whose  speeches  were 
composed  to  be  read,  not  delivered.^^^  Alcidamas'  statement  at  the 
beginning  of  his  work,  that  his  remarks  are  directed  against  those 
who  plume  themselves  on  the  display  of  their  wisdom  through  books, 
and  who  spend  their  lives  in  writing  speeches,  would  surely  show 
that  he  had  Isocrates  in  mind.^^^  His  description  of  the  author 
laboriously  composing  and  taking  the  advice  of  his  friends  in  re- 
vising his  speech,^^^  would  fit  in  perfectly  with  what  we  know  of 
Isocrates'  practice.  Likewise  his  remarks  about  the  one  who  pro- 
fesses to  teach  the  art  of  words,  but  has  himself  no  power  to  speak,^^^ 
is  a  good  characterization  of  Isocrates.  The  further  criticisms  of 
the  orators  who  are  voiceless  except  when  they  have  learned  a 

'''33-35.    Cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  276D. 

^Ci.  Tzetzes,  Chil.  XI,  672;  Spengel,  pp.  173-180;  Gercke,  A.:  die  alte 
Texvt)  'qt)toqiht|  und  ihre  Gegner  {Hermes,  XXXII  [1897]  341-81),  and 
Jsokrates  XIII  und  Alkidamas  (Rhein.  Mus.  LIV  [1899]  404-13).  Against 
this  view  see  Hubik,  J.:  Alkidamas  oder  Isokrates  {Weiner  Stud.  XXIII 
[1901]  209-12;  cf.  Reinhardt,  C. :  de  Isocratis  aemulis,  (Bonn,  1873); 
Mahaffy,  II,  246;  Blass,  II,  p.  22  ff. ;  240-242.  See,  however,  Siiss  on 
Alcidamas. 

"^The  title  of  the  treatise,  jieqi  tcov  xovg  yQtmxoy^c,  Xoyoug  7Qaq)6vTcov,. 
would  seem  to  imply  that  Alcidamas  had  this  class  of  writers  in  mind. 

^1-2. 

"^4-5. 

""  15 ;  cf.  also  Pseudo-Plutarch  838E. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY   SPEECH    IN   THEORY  OF  RHETORIC  37 

written  speech  by  heart,  could  not  apply  to  Isocrates  or  writers  of 
his  sort.  He  never  tried  to  deliver  a  public  speech,  nor  is  there  any 
evidence  that  he  ever  taught  his  pupils  to  rely  solely  on  their  manu- 
scripts/^® 

Alcidamas  claims  that  the  ability  to  speak  well  necessarily  im- 
plies an  ability  to  write  well.  Since  the  speakers  have  been  trained 
for  the  more  difficult  task,  they  can  turn  readily  to  the  easier  one ;  ^*^ 
but  what  can  that  training  have  been  which  the  extemporary  orator 
went  through  ?  ^*^  Clearly  one  in  which  writing  played  a  large  part, 
at  least  if  Alcidamas  followed  the  method  of  his  teacher  Gorgias.^*^ 

In  Gorgias'  school,  extempore  speech  was  the  result,  in  part  at 
least,  of  training  in  writing,  and  Alcidamas  himself  admits  that 
writing  has  some  use.^"*^  If  a  speaker  has  gained  his  ability  to  speak 
through  writing,  of  course  writing  will  be  an  easier  task  to  him. 
Perhaps  this  is  the  explanation  of  Alcidamas'  other  claim,  that  it  is 
easier  to  write  than  to  speak.^^*  His  statement  that  no  one  will  be 
able  to  speak  as  a  result  of  having  trained  himself  in  writing  is  one 
which  Quintilian  later  is  at  great  pains  to  disprove.^"*^ 

To  the  orators  who  wrote  their  speeches,  whoever  they  may  have 
been,  Alcidamas  is  clearly  unfair.    He  proves  the  superiority  of  ex- 

*^  How  far  Isocrates'  pupils  did  commit  to  memory  is  uncertain.  Their 
productions  were  subjected  to  careful  revision  by  the  master  (cf.  p.  24).  The 
stress  Isocrates  lays  on  the  cultivation  of  the  memory  (cf.  n.  86),  might 
imply  that  in  the  end  the  revised  speech  was  memorized.  Even  if  this  were 
the  case  Isocrates  doubtless  also  trained  his  pupils  to  take  advantage  of 
unforeseen  opportunities. 

"°This  is,  of  course,  a  pure  fallacy.  Learning  a  more  difficult  subject 
may  make  it  easier  to  learn  an  easier  one.  Certain  branches  of  higher  mathe- 
matics are  more  difficult  than  certain  languages,  but  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  the  one  who  knows  the  mathematics  can  speak  the  languages. 

"^Alcidamas  himself  says  (6)  that  the  ability  to  speak  extempore  is  the 
result  of  no  chance  method  of  training. 

"^On  the  method  of  Gorgias  see  p.  11.  Also  Siiss,  Ethos  pp.  17-59;  Scheel. 
E. :  de  Gorgianae  disciplinae  vestigiis  (Rostock,  1890). 

^"3.  Cf.  the  dictum  of  Epicurus,  that  writing  entails  no  trouble:  to 
ya.Q  ovx  EJiLTCovou  ToO  YQdqpEiv  ovxog,  d)g  auxog  'EmxouQog  "Kiyzi,  which 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  strongly  condemns  {de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  24  fin.). 
That  depends  upon  what  sort  of  writing  or  speaking  one  does.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  how  well  one  does  either. 

"'Cf.  Quintilian,  X,  3,  2;  I,  i,  28;  X,  7,  12;  also  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  zz, 
150  ff. 


38  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

temporary  speech  by  attacking  exaggerated  examples  from  the  other 
side.  The  man  he  sets  up  as  a  representative  of  the  non-extempo- 
rary orators  is  one  who  has  spent  his  life  in  writing  in  his  study, 
and  is  suddenly  forced  to  make  an  extemporary  speech/*^  or  one 
who  has  laboriously  written  out  his  speech  and  learned  it  by  heart, 
and  who  is  absolutely  incapable  of  saying  anything  beyond  what 
appears  in  his  written  copy/*^  The  recluse  or  teacher  like  Isocrates, 
suddenly  brought  from  his  retirement  and  forced  to  make  a  speech 
at  a  moment's  notice,  of  course  would  be  at  a  loss.  So,  too,  would 
the  man  who  could  do  nothing  but  repeat,  parrot-like,  a 
speech  he  had  written.^*®    Such  a  man  could  not,  as  Alcidamas 

"'Alcidamas  seems  to  have  in  mind  chiefly  the  speakers  in  the  assem- 
blies and  law-courts  (9;  11;  13;  24).  In  the  latter,  very  often  the  speeches 
delivered  must  have  been  recited  by  another  than  the  author,  but  Alcidamas 
does  not  seem  to  have  considered  the  case  of  the  man  who  has  purchased 
a  written  speech,  unless  section  13  be  a  possible  reference.  Such  a  speech 
must  be  memorized  in  order  to  keep  within  the  letter  of  the  law  which  de- 
clared that  each  citizen  must  make  his  own  defense  (cf.  p.  Son.  54)'.  Plutarch 
(de  Garrulitate,  5)  tells  the  following  story:  'Tysias  wrote  a  defense  for 
some  accused  person  and  gave  it  to  him,  and  after  he  had  read  it  (dvavvovg) 
several  times,  he  came  to  Lysias  in  great  dejection  and  said:  "When  I  first 
read  this  defense,  it  seemed  to  me  wonderful,  but  when  I  read  it  a  second  and 
a  third  time,  it  seemed  utterly  dull  and  ineffective."  Then  Lysias  laughed 
and  said:  "What  then?  Are  you  going  to  recite  it  (n8?c?t£i5  XeyEiv)  more 
than  once  to  the  jury?" 

According  to  Liddell  and  Scott,  Xeyoj  never  means  read,  but  always 
recite.  Even  in  such  phrases  as  Xa^e  to  pipXiov  xal  Xeye,  they  believe  that 
Xeys  means  recite  what  is  written.  In  the  Plutarch  passage  the  distinction 
is  clear  between  the  man's  reading  the  speech  to  himself,  and  his  reciting 
it  to  the  jury  after  he  has  memorized  it,  but  in  the  directions  of  an  orator 
to  the  clerk,  when  decrees  or  laws  clearly  are  read,  it  is  difficult  to  keep  such 
a  distinction;  cf.  Dem.  XVIII,  28,  2>7,  39,  53,  7Z,  75,  76,  83,  89,  92,  105, 
115,  118,  120,  154,  155,  156,  163,  180,  212,  214,  217,  221,  222,  267,  289,  305; 
XIX,  32,  38,  40,  47,  51,  61,  62,  63,  70,  86,  130,  154,  161,  162,  168,  170,  200, 
214,  and  elsewhere. 

^**  Alcidamas  does  not  seem  to  have  contemplated  the  possibility  of  an 
orator  having  practiced  a  speech,  and  yet  being  able  to  extemporize  if  neces- 
sary. He  harps  continually  on  the  "written"  speech  and  uses  no  word  which 
could  be  taken  to  mean  an  oration  practiced,  and  yet  such  that  it  will  not  suf- 
fer from  necessary  extemporary  interpolations.  According  to  Alcidamas,  if  a 
man  writes  a  speech,  it  follows  that  he  must  depend  on  it  word  for  word. 

If  other  advantages  are  equal,  the  best  writer  is  apt  to  be  the  best  speaker, 
but  an  inferior  writer  would  have  the  advantage  on  the  platform  if  he  pos- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH   IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         39 

says/^^  take  advantage  of  sudden  opportunities  for  speaking,  and  if 
he  did  forget  a  part  of  his  speech  or  tried  to  insert  any  new  mat- 
ter,^^^  would  be  thrown  into  utter  confusion,  but  why  write  an  attack 
on  speakers  whose  failure  before  an  audience  would  be  the  clearest 
proof  of  their  inability  to  speak  ?  Surely  such  men  could  not  be  taken 
as  representative  of  the  non-extemporary  orator  in  Alcidamas'  time. 
A  capable  orator  must  have  been  one  who,  while  he  prepared  his 
speech  so  far  as  he  could,  was  still  able  to  extemporize  if  occasion 
should  require  it,  and  so  weave  the  parts  together  that  one  portion 
would  not,  as  Alcidamas  says,  seem  mean  and  poor  in  comparison 
with  the  accurate  finish  of  the  rest/^^  The  statement  that  the  audi- 
ence looks  with  distrust  and  envy  upon  highly  elaborated  pro- 
ductions is  perfectly  true,^^"  and  all  who  treat  of  rhetoric  have  much 
to  say  about  how  the  speaker  is  to  disarm  the  suspicion  of  the  judg€ 
and  the  audience.^^^  It  is  likewise  true  that  orators  are  most  success- 

sessed  a  good  voice  and  an  attractive  personality.  Ulpian  (in  Dem.  c.  Timocr. 
822)  says  that  Demosthenes,  when  he  was  asked  whether  he  or  Callistratus 
of  Aphidnae  were  the  better  speaker,  answered:  iyu)  \iev  VQacpoM-evo?,  KaX- 
lioxQaTOc,  bk  dxovonEvog  (Jebb,  I,  LXIV).  It  was  precisely  because  Iso- 
crates   did   not   possess   these   other   abilities   that   he    failed   as   a   speaker. 

^^21.  Plutarch,  de  Educat.  Puer.  c.  9,  would  allow  extemporary  speech  as 
emergencies  call  for  it,  but  believes  that  it  should  be  used  only  as  one  would 
take  medicine,  i.  e.  occasionally  and  sparingly, 

^^  14.  David  Hume  in  An  Essay  on  Eloquence  (Essay  XII  of  Essays  Moral, 
Political,  and  Literary)  says:  "It  is  true  there  is  a  great  prejudice  against 
set  speeches ;  and  a  man  cannot  escape  ridicule  who  repeats  a  discourse  as  a 
schoolboy  does  his  lesson,  and  takes  no  notice  of  anything  that  has  been  ad- 
vanced in  the  course  of  the  debate.  But  where  is  the  necessity  of  falling 
into  this  absurdity?  A  public  speaker  must  know  beforehand  the  question 
under  debate.  He  may  compose  all  the  arguments,  objections,  and  answers 
such  as  he  thinks  will  be  most  proper  for  his  discourse.  If  anything  new 
occur,  he  may  supply  it  from  his  own  invention ;  nor  will  the  difference  he 
very  apparent  between  his  elaborate  and  his  extemporary  compositions.  The 
mind  naturally  continues  with  the  same  force  which  it  has  acquired  by  its 
motion;  as  a  vessel,  once  impelled  by  the  oars,  carries  on  its  course  for  some 
time,  when  the  original  impulse  is  suspended" 

For  exactly  the  same  figure  see  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  3;^,  150,  p.  55. 

^^22-23. 

^  The  idea  that  the  judge  and  the  audience  are  suspicious  of  a  finished 
speech  and  that  the  suspicion  of  the  judge  may  be  disarmed  and  the  good- 


40  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

ful  when  their  speeches  appear  to  be  spontaneous,  but  this  is  no 
reason  for  assuming  that  an  extemporary  speaker  is  superior  to  a 
capable  orator  who  prepares  his  speeches/^* 

will  of  the  audience  gained  by  seeming  to  speak  without  preparation,  very 
frequently  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients:  Alcidamas,  12-13,  22-23, 
33-35  J  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  14,  7;  Cicero,  de  Invent.  I,  15,  20;  Quintilian,  IV, 
I,  5;  8-9;  37-39;  54;  56-58;  IV,  2,  126-7;  XI,  2,  47;  XI,  3,  157-8;  Anaximenes, 
Ars  Rhet.  c,  36  {Rhet.  Gr.  I,  229  Sp.)  ;  Hermogenes  {Rhet.  Gr.  II,  440;" 
441,  28,  Sp.)  ;  Philostratus,  Vit.  Apoll.  VIII,  6,  i;  cf.  Sarcey,  p.  161. 

A  profession  of  weakness,  inexperience,  or  inferiority  in  ability  to  the 
other  side,  according  to  Quintilian  (IV,  i,  8-9)  allays  the  suspicion  of  the 
judge.  Of  this  there  are  many  examples :  Antiphon,  de  caede  Herod.  1 ; 
Tetral  II,  2,  i;  Lysias,  XVI,  20-21;  XII,  1-3;  Ps.-Lys.  Epitaph.  1-3;  Dem. 
XLI,  2;  Ps.-Dem.  LVIII,  2;  58;  60;  LIX,  14;  Isaeus,  VIII,  5;  IX,  35;  X, 
I,  Cicero,  Pro  Quint,  and  Pro  Arch,  (beginning)  ;  cf.  Quint.  XI,  i,  19-20, 
and  elsewhere.  Cf.  Mathews,  p.  208  ff. 

Attempts  are  often  made  by  one  side  to  arouse  the  envy  and  jealousy  of 
the  judges  against  the  other:  Lys.  XX,  23,  Isocr.  VII,  35;  XVIII,  48;  60; 
Dem.  XXVIII,  2;  7;  24;  45-66;  Ps.  Dem.  XLII,  23;  LVIII,  41;  Isaeus, 
VIII,  39,  5 ;  35,  2 ;  ^sch.  I,  loi ;  Lycur.  Adv.  Leocr.  10,  32 ;  Din.  I,  70. 

The  hearers  are  told  that  the  effect  of  the  orator's  speech  depends  on  their 
good-will  and  sympathy:  Dem.  XVIII,  277;  XIX,  340;  Ps.  Dem.  Epitaph. 
13;  Plut.  comp  Dem.-Cic.  II,  and  elsewhere. 

There  was  a  technical  term  for  the  attempts  of  an  orator  to  render  his 
hearers  or  the  judge  favorably  disposed  toward  him:  jiQOJtaQaaxEuri  or  prae- 
paratio;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  19,  11  (with  Gudeman's  note)';  compare  Quint.  IV,  i, 
62;  72;  2,  26;  VII,  10,  12. 

Isocrates  (IV,  13)  attacks  those  who  seek  to  mollify  their  hearers  by 
"alleging  either  that  they  have  had  to  make  their  preparations  off-hand  (e| 
vJtoYviov),  or  that  it  is  difficult  to  find  words  adequate  to  the  greatness  of 
their  subject  matter". 

The  phrase,  e§  vKoyv'iov  is  interpreted  by  avxooxEfiia^Eiv  by  the  Scholiast 
on  Aristophanes'  Clouds  145,  and  by  Suidas,  s.  v.  8|  vnoymv.  According 
to  Kiihner  {Gr.  Gram.  sec.  523)  £§  vjtOYuiou  =  eh  tov  naQaiQr\\x.o..  Cf.  ex 
XeiQog  off-hand  (Polybius),  e|  dn:Qoa8oxr|Tou,  e|  kxol\x,ov  and  ex  toiI  qpavEQOv 
(Isocr.  IV,  147).  Other  passages  in  which  the  phrase  or  an  allied  expression 
occurs  are  Arist.  Rhet.  I,  i,  7;  H,  22,  11;  Pol.  VII  (VI),  8,  1321b  17;  Xen. 
Cyr.  VI,  I,  43;  Plato,  Menex.  235C;  Isocr.  XVIII,  29;  XV,  4;  Ep.  VI,  3; 
Longin.  (?)  de  Sublim.  XVIII,  2;  XXXII,  3;  C.  I.  2250,  7,  and  elsewhere. 

For  the  equivalent  phrase  ex  tov  jtagaxefjpia,  JtagaxQfiM-a,  etc.,  see 
Plato,  Crat.  399D ;  R^P-  455A;  Menex.  236B;  Polit.  310C;  Plut.  Mor.  6C; 
Dem.  I,  I ;  XXXVII,  47 ;  Ps.  Dem.  LXI,  2,  and  elsewhere,  ex  toij  kqogxvxov- 
Tog  and  avxodEv  occur  in  Plut.  Mor.  407B  and  elsewhere. 

^An  orator  might  be  fully  capable  of  extemporizing  an  address  and  still 
prefer  to  prepare.    M.  Sarcey  (p.  45)  tells  an  anecdote  of  M.  Leon  Say  who 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         4I 

In  Alcidamas'  complaint  that  written  speeches  are  Hke  statues 
and  cannot  help  one  in  his  time  of  need/^^  he  goes  back  again  to  his 
criticism  of  speeches  to  be  read.  In  comparison  with  a  living  speak- 
er they  are  indeed  lifeless,  and  of  this  disadvantage  Isocrates  was 
well  aware.^^^  The  comparison,  however,  need  not  necessarily  be 
between  written  speeches  and  extemporary  speakers.  It  would  hold 
perfectly  well  between  academic  essays  and  the  speeches  of  such  an 
orator  as  Demosthenes.  Even  Alcidamas,  while  proving  the  superi- 
ority of  the  extemporary  speaker,  would  leave  himself  a  loop-hole 
of  escape.  He  would  allow  his  speaker  to  arrange  his  arguments 
and  the  order  of  his  speech ;  the  words  ought  to  be  extemporary.^^^ 
This  might  imply  much  or  little  in  the  way  of  preparation.^^^ 

Alcidamas'  treatise,  then,  is  a  laudation  of  extemporary  speech, 
first,  as  compared  with  orations  which  are  written  to  be  read,  and 
so  far,  perhaps,  aimed  at  Isocrates;  and  secondly,  against  those 
orators  who  can  speak  only  if  they  have  written  and  memorized  a 
speech.^^^    His  arguments  against  each  class  are  sound,  but  they  will 

had  prepared  a  lecture  and  as  he  was  stepping  on  the  platform  received  an 
order  from  the  government  to  change  his  subject.  He  thereupon  delivered  an 
extemporary  lecture  with  great  success.  Emerson  (Essay  on  Eloquence) 
tells  of  Lord  Ashley's  being  unable  on  one  occasion  to  deliver  a  premeditated 
speech,  and  his  finally  drawing  an  eloquent  argument  from  his  own  confusion. 

^"^27  ff.  Cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  275-6. 

^"Isocr.  V,  25-26. 

^°^  Of  course  the  preparation  need  not  necessarily  be  verbal.  Still,  if  an 
orator  spent  much  time  on  the  arrangement  of  his  arguments  he  would  un- 
consciously fall  into  using  certain  sequences  of  words  which  would  again 
recur  with  the  argument.  Cf.  Sarcey,  quoted  in  n.  121  p.  31.  The  result  is 
practically  memorization. 

^'®  There  are  amusing  stories  in  Quintilian  of  those  orators  who  cannot 
alter  the  fashion  of  their  speeches,  into  which  they  have  introduced  passages 
for  effect  which  sometimes  fail  to  produce  it:  VI,  i,  42-43;  VI,  3,  39-40. 
Also  Cicero  pro  Cluent.  21.  Compare  Goldwin  Smith,  Reminiscences,  pp. 
405-6:  "The  average  of  speaking,  however,  in  America,  both  in  Congress  and 
elsewhere,  is  far  higher  than  it  is  in  England.     Rhetoric  and  elocution  are 

parts  of  American  education The  training,  however,  has  one 

bad  result,  the  orator  seldom  gets  rid  of  the  air  of  speaking  for  effect.  The 
•great  English  orators,  nature's  elect  and  pupils,  such  as  Gladstone  and  Bright, 
speak  in  the  accent  of  nature  and  to  the  heart,  though  practice  in  debating 
societies  had  marred  the  freshness  of  Gladstone's  style.    I  once  heard  Everett, 


42  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

not  apply  to  both  classes,  nor  would  they  hold  against  one  who 
could  justly  be  called  a  good  orator,  the  man  who  is  able  to  deliver 
a  creditable  extemporary  speech  when  necessary,  but  who  realizes 
that  there  are  occasions  which  demand  a  degree  of  precision  and 
finish  which  only  a  written  speech  can  attain. 

Isocrates'  other  opponent,  Aristotle,  held  very  different  views 
from  those  of  Alcidamas.  It  was  the  practice  of  Aristotle,  we  are 
told,  to  ^'accustom  his  disciples  to  discuss  any  question  which  might 
be  proposed,  training  them  just  as  an  orator  might."  "^  This  might 
almost  be  a  description  of  Gorgias'  method  of  teaching,  but  there 
are  not  many  traces  of  the  sophists  in  Aristotle's  theoretical  treat- 
ment of  rhetoric. 

Aristotle's  Rhetoric  is  in  reality  only  an  amplification  of  the 
principles  set  forth  in  Plato's  Phaedrus}^^  Like  the  Phaedrus,  it 
contains  no  treatment  of  extemporary  speech.^^^  The  question 
Aristotle  deals  with  is  the  difference  between  written  and  spoken 
speeches,  that  is,  the  difference  between  the  style  to  be  used  in  writ- 
ing and  that  to  be  used  in  pleading.^^^  He  distinguishes  two  kinds  of 
speeches,  and  two  styles  appropriate  to  them:  (i)  the  style  of  de- 
bate, that  of  the  speech  made  in  the  actual  contest  in  the  assembly 
or  law-court;  and  (2)  the  style  of  written  compositions  which  are 


whose  platform  oratory  was  the  acme  of  American  art.  His  language  was 
unimpeachable.  But  his  every  word,  and  not  only  his  every  word,  but  his 
every  gesture,  was  unmistakably  prepared.  He  seemed  to  gesticulate  not  only 
with  his  hands,  but  with  his  legs.  He  even  planned  scenic  effects  beforehand. 
Having  to  deliver  a  Fourth  of  July  oration,  he  introduced  a  veteran  of  1812, 
put  him  in  a  conspicuous  place,  and  told  the  old  man  to  rise  to  him  at  his 
entrance  into  the  Hall.  The  old  man  did  as  he  had  been  bidden.  Everett 
apostrophized  him  with,  "Venerable  old  man,  sit  down !  It  is  not  for  you  to 
rise  to  us,  but  for  us  to  rise  to  you."  The  veteran  said  afterwards,  "Mr. 
Everett  is  a  strange  man;  he  told  me  to  rise  when  he  came  into  the  hall, 
and  when  I  did  rise  he  told  me  to  sit  down." 

""Diogenes  Laertius  V,  Aristotle,  4. 

*"  Cf .  Thompson's  Phaedrus,  Introd.  p.  XX,  where  he  compares  the 
Phaedrus  and  the  Rhetoric. 

^•"Aristotle's  treatment  of  the  agonistic  speech  may  possibly  include  ex- 
temporary speeches.    See,  however,  p.  44,  n.  174. 

^^Rhet.  Ill,  12.  On  the  adaptation  of  style  to  the  different  kinds  of 
oratory,  see  Quintilian,  VHI,  3,  11 -14  (Cope)';  also  HI,  8,  63,  though  with 
perhaps  a  difference  of  meaning. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         43 

confined  to  the  ''display*'  branch  of  literature,  and  under  which  he 
includes  all  compositions  which  are  intended  to  be  read,  poetry, 
history,  philosophy,  any  writing  on  any  subject  whatever. ^^* 

With  both  of  these  styles  the  orator  ought  to  be  acquainted.  A 
knowledge  of  the  agonistic  style  means  simply  the  power  of  speaking 
good  Greek,  and  if  the  orator  is  acquainted  with  the  style  appropri- 
ate to  writing,  he  need  not  sit  silent  when  he  wishes  to  communicate 
his  opinions  to  others  besides  the  members  of  the  assembly  or  court 
before  which  he  actually  makes  his  speech,  a  fate  which  awaits  those 
who  can  only  speak  and  not  write.^^^ 

According  to  Aristotle,  the  written  style  is  the  more  exact  or 
finished;  the  style  of  debate  partakes  more  of  declamation.^^^  In 
debate  character  and  emotion  are  both  represented,^^''  doubtless  be- 
cause in  a  debate  the  interests  at  stake  are  real  and  there  is  therefore 
more  room  for  portrayal  of  character  and  display  of  passion  than  in 
the  comparatively  unemotional  written  speeches. ^^^  A  man  who  is 
passionately  intent  upon  moving  a  judge,  may  omit  a  conjunction  or 

"*  See  Hermogenes  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  401,  Sp.).  Aristotle  subdivides  the 
first  class  of  speeches  into  the  deliberative  and  the  forensic.  He  does  not 
contemplate  the  epideictic  speech  as  a  spoken  speech  (III,  12,  5-6). 

"°Rhet.  Ill,  12,  2.  See  Blair's  Lecture  (VII)  on  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  Writing  (Vol.  I,  171)'. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Third  Book  of  Aristotle's  Rhetoric  has  been 
questioned.  Diogenes  Laertius  (V,  i,  24)  in  his  list  of  Aristotle's  works 
gives  the  following :  texvy)?  qyjtoq  ixfig  a  (3,  jieqI  ^lE^ecog  a  p.  Jebb,  in  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Rhetoric  {Introd.  p,  xxii.  7)  believes  that  the  latter  refers  to  the 
two  parts  of  Book  III,  also  described  as  nzQi  Xelecog  xa^agag  a.  The  argu- 
ments of  H.  Diels  {Ahliandl.  d.  Berl.  Akad.  [1886]  IV,  1-37)  who  believes  it 
genuine  appear  conclusive.  The  treatise  has  also  been  defended  by  Spengel 
(ed.  1867,  II,  354),  and  Cope  (ed.  1867,  Introd.  p.  8).  Sauppe  (Ausg.  Schr. 
[1863]  354  ff.)  and  Rose  {Ar.  Pseud.  137)  believe  it  spurious. 

"°  vjiojcQiTixcoTdxT) :  "lends  itself  most  to  acting"  (Cope);  "is  the  best 
adapted  to  deliver"  (Jebb). 

Cope,  on  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  12,  2,  quotes  Cicero,  Orator,  LXI,  208,  for 
the  reason  why  the  graphic  style  admits  of  more  ornament  and  artificial  ar- 
rangement than  the  other,  at  least  so  far  as  declamation  is  concerned.  Cf. 
also  Rhet.  Ill,  5,  6. 

^•"III,  12,  2. 

^®*0n  the  contrast  between  the  two  see  Isocrates  V,  25-26;  Alcidamas, 
Jteol  Ttov  TOiig  yQO.KTQvc,  "koyovc,  YQaqpovTWv. 


44  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

two  with  safety.^^^  Demetrius  of  Phalerum  has  the  same  idea  in 
mind  when  he  assigns  to  debate  the  disjointed  style,  and  keeps  the 
compacted  and  consolidated  one  for  the  reader/^*^ 

Therefore,  according  to  Aristotle,  the  speeches  of  the  writers  if 
they  are  delivered  in  actual  debate,  seem  paltry  ^^^  in  comparison 
with  those  of  the  orators,  while  the  latter,  excellent  as  they  were 
when  delivered,  appear  crude  ^^^  when  taken  in  the  hands  and 
read.^''^ 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  speeches  intended  for  delivery  do  not 
produce  their  proper  effect  when  delivery  is  withdrawn,  and  so  ap- 
pear ridiculous,^^*  and  in  like  manner,  while  omission  of  connectives 
and  frequent  repetitions  in  written  style  are  justly  censured,  in  de- 
bate they  become  amplification  and  are  employed  by  the  orator 
because  more  adapted  for  declamation.  ^^^ 

"*  Aristotle  elsewhere  says  that  where  action  or  delivery  is  most  re- 
quired, there  there  is  least  of  exact  finish  to  be  found :  III,  12,  5. 

"°de  Elocutione  193:  "No  doubt  the  disjointed  style  lends  itself  better 
to  debate.  It  likewise  bears  the  name  of  "histrionic"  since  a  broken  structure 
stimulates  acting.  On  the  other  hand,  the  best  "literary  style"  (vQacpixTi 
8e  Xe^ig)  is  that  which  is  pleasant  to  read;  and  this  is  the  style  which  is 
compacted  and  (as  it  were)  consolidated  by  the  conjunctions"   (Roberts). 

Sarcey  (p.  163)  says  that  in  a  lecture  there  are  no  transitions.  When 
you  have  finished  one  theme,  simply  pass  on  to  the  next  if  there  is  no  logical 
connection  between  the  two.     If  there  is,  the  audience  will  follow  it. 

"^axevog:  "narrow"  (Cope)  ;  "thin"  (Jebb).  axevog  is  the  Latin  tenuis, 
that  is,  "slight",  in  a  depreciatory  sense.    Cf.  Cope's  note  on  this  passage. 

"^  l8icoTi>toi :  "such  as  have  only  the  capacity  of  unprofessional  persons 
or  laymen";  as  opposed  to  professionals  (Cope): 

"'  III,  12,  2.  Cf .  Quint.  XI,  3,  8,  on  Hortensius. 

"*  Such  speeches  must  have  been  written  or  they  could  not  appear  "silly^' 
(Jebb)  or  otherwise;  there  would  be  no  means  of  judging  of  their  effect 
on  a  reader.  This  would  argue  against  the  assumption  that  Aristotle  in- 
cluded impromptu  speeches  in  the  agonistic  class. 

Memorization  of  speeches  must  have  been  common,  for  Theophrastus' 
"Loquacious  Man"  is  one  who  never  fails  to  repeat  a  much-applauded  speech 
he  once  made  in  the  assembly. 

"^III,  12,  2.  Cf.  Aquila  Romanus  30. 

Jebb,  in  his  translation,  has  the  following:  "But  when  we  reiterate  we 
must  also  vary — an  art,  which  is,  as  it  were,  introductory  to  the  whole  art 
of  delivery."  I  cannot  get  this  meaning  out  of  the  passage:  the  varying  of 
the  expression,  as  the  following  example  shows,  opens  the  way  to  declamation. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         45 

Leaving  now  the  subject  of  written  speech  as  contrasted  with 
the  speech  of  debate,  Aristotle  discusses  the  two  classes  into  which 
he  divides  the  latter.^^®  Of  these,  the  deliberative,  or  speech  to  the 
people,  is  exactly  like  sketching ;  ^^^  the  greater  the  crowd  addressed, 
the  more  distant  is  their  point  of  view,  and  so  finished  productions 
are  superfluous.  The  style  of  a  judicial  oration  or  forensic  pleading, 
being  before  a  smaller  audience,  admits  of  more  exactness  and 
finish/^^  still  more  so  if  it  be  before  a  single  judge.  Here  there  is 
least  room  for  rhetorical  artifices  ;^^^  what  belongs  to  the  case  and 
what  is  foreign  to  it  is  more  easily  seen,  and  since  the  contest  is 
absent,^^^  and  there  is  no  room  for  prejudice,  the  judgment  is  un- 
biased. This  is  why  the  same  orators  do  not  distinguish  themselves 
in  all  these  branches,  but  where  delivery  is  most  required,  there 
there  is  least  of  accurate  finish  to  be  found. 

The  epideictic  style,  says  Aristotle,  is  best  suited  to  writing  for 
its  purpose  is  to  be  read,  and  in  the  second  degree,  the  judicial/^^ 
Aristotle  nowhere  says  that  the  speech  to  be  delivered  should  be 
extemporary. 

Other  writers  of  Greek  treatises  on  rhetoric  have  very  little  to 
say  on  the  subject  of  extemporary  speech.^^^  Anaximenes,^®^  who  is 

"'III,  12,  5,  Cf.  Cope's  note  on  this  passage. 

"'Ill,  12,  5.  For  the  figure  see  Plato,  Theatetus,  208E;  also  Phaedo, 
69B;  Parmen.  165C;  Rep.  365C;  602D;  Jebb  (p.  178)  renders  axiayoacpia, 
"rough  fresco-painting". 

"Mil,  12,  6;  Quint.  Ill,  8,  62. 

"®Jebb  (p.  178)  renders  this:  "the  relevant  and  the  irrelevant  are  then 
more  easily  seen  in  one  view,  and  the  turmoil  is  absent,  so  that  the  judgment 
is  serene." 

^^Cf.  Cicero,  ad  Att.  I,  16,  8. 

"Mil,  12,  6. 

^^For  the  attitude  toward  rhetoric  of  the  post- Aristotelian  philosophers, 
and  that  of  the  Stoics  and  later  schools,  see  Zeller :  The  Stoics,  Epicureans, 
and  Sceptics,  Eng.  trans.  London,  1870;  Stryter:  de  Stoicorum  studio  rheto- 
ric 0. 

For  the  Stoic  definition  of  rhetoric  see  Diog.  Laert.  VII,  42;  Sext.  Emp. 
Adv.  Math.  II,  Plut.  de  Stoic.  Repug.  28,  1047  ff.  It  was  characteristic  of  the 
Stoics  to  separate  theory  and  practice:  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  38,  159;  III,  18,  65. 

On  Chrysippus'  Jtegi  xfjg  'gTixogixfi?  cf.  Baguet,  de  Chrysippi  vita,  doc- 
trina,  et  scriptis,  Lovan,  1822,  103. 

For  Epicurus'  attitude  toward  oratory  and  learning,  see  Schol.  in  Hermog. 
(Spengel,  p.  8);  Quint.  II,  17,  15;  XII,  2,  24. 

^  Cf.  Siiss,  Ethos,  p.  123. 


46  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

generally  accepted  as  the  author  of  the  "Rhetorica  ad  Alexan- 
drum,"^^*  has  a  few  brief  remarks  about  the  prepared  speech.  They 
have,  however,  nothing  to  do  with  the  theory  of  the  matter,  being 
merely  interesting  directions  for  a  reply  to  the  charge  of  deliver- 
ing a  prepared  speech.  His  remarks  are  a  practical  admission  of 
the  charge  of  preparation :  sav  5s  Sta^aXXwatv  Yjfxaq  tdq  YeYpa[i|jt.svou? 
XoYOu?  Xs^o^xsv,  1^  Xs^eiv  [leXeTwpLsv  yj  w?  ext  {xtaOco  Ttvt  auvY]Yopou(jLev, 
XPY]  xpo?  xa  TOtauTOf  6[jl6<7S  faBi^ovTag  etpwveueaOat,  Ttai  xspi  [xsv  tyji; 
Ypa^-^q  Xsystv,  [jly)  T^wXustv  tov  v6[i.ov  out.  sav  TOtauxa  TcpaiTStv,  XsYstv  Se 
OTuw?  av  Tt(;  fouXir^Tat  ffuyx^pstv.  'Pyjisov-  Ss  /.at  OTt  outg)^  6  evavuto? 
oteiat  iisyaXa  Y)5cxY]xevat.  wax'  06  vo[i.t^st  [as  /.ax'  a?tav  xaTYj^opYJaat, 
et  iJLY]  Ypa^otpi-t  /.at  xoXuv  ^povov  ax£<J^atVir]v.  xspt  [asv  ouv  xa?  xo)v  YSTpaji.- 
[ji,€V(j)v  Xoywv  SiagoXa?  ouxo?  axavxY)xeov,  ov  8e  (paa/watv,  if3iJLa(;  Xe^etv 
[xavOavstv  /at  [isXsxav,  6[jLoXoYin(iavx£<;  spoujisv  •  yj^xsi?  (lev  ot  [jLavOavovx£<; 
to?  9Y]<;  oO  9tX6St/.ot  safjisv,  au  Se  6  Xeystv  [jly]  extaxa[JL£VO(;  /.at  v5v  if]|ia? 
xai  xpoxspov  £aX(o?  a'jT^oqjavx&iv '  toaxe  XuatxfiXfi?  qjavstxat  zolq  xoXtxat? 
>tdxsivov  (jLavSavstv  'pY]xop£U£tv  -^^^     Later  in  his  treatise  Anaximenes 

^^The  Rhetorica  ad  Alexandrum  is  now  universally  admitted  to  be  the 
work  of  some  author  other  than  Aristotle.  The  Florentine  scholar,  Victorius, 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  argue  that  the  real  author  was  Anaximenes  of 
Lampsacus.  Since  the  thorough  discussion  of  the  question  by  Spengel  {Art. 
Script.  182-189)  this  view  has  been  almost  universally  adopted  although  it  is 
not  without  its  difficulties  (cf.  Cope,  Introd.  to  Aristotle's  Rhetoric,  pp. 
406-414).  The  treatise  is  not  quoted  in  Aristotle's  Rhetoric,  although  it  bears 
some  rather  superficial  points  of  resemblance  to  it.  The  latest  event  men- 
tioned in  it  belongs  to  340  B.  C,  and  therefore  the  date  has  been  put  at  about 
340-330  B.  C.  For  a  further  discussion  of  the  treatise  see  Spengel,  (Anax- 
imenes Ars  Rhetorica,  (ed.  1847),  and  Philologus  XVIII  (1862),  604-646; 
Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  II,  378-399,  (2nd.  ed.  II,  353  ff.)';  Jebb,  II,  431;  Wendland, 
(Berlin,  1905);  Nitsche,  W:  Dem.  u.  Anaximenes  (Berlin,  1905).  Navarre, 
Essai  sur  la  Rhetorique  grecque  avant  Aristote  (Paris,  1900),  160;  335  ff., 
does  not  believe  that  Aristotle  was  the  author,  but  finds  it  difficult  to  accept 
Anaximenes.  See  also  Susemihl  {Jahres.  Ub.  die  Fortsch.  d.  classisch.  Alterth. 
(188s),  XIII,  I  ff.;  and  Maas,  E. :  Deutsch.  Litteraturz.  IV  (1896),  103  ff. 

Gamier,  Mem.  sur  V  art  oratoire  de  Corax  (Memoires  de  I'lnstitut, 
2e  serie,  tom.  II,  1815)  tries  to  prove  it  the  work  of  Corax.  (Cf.  Gros.  E. : 
£tude  sur  I'etat  de  la  Rhetorique  ches  les  Grecs  [Paris,  1835],  16). 

^Rhet.  Gr.  I,  234-5,  Sp.  Cf.  Demosthenes'  admission  of  preparation: 
XXI,  191 ;  Plut.  de  Educat.  Puer.  9.  There  may  possibly  be  a  hint  of  prepar- 
ation on  Demosthenes'  part  in  XIII,  171,  18,  but  the  authenticity  of  this  speech 
is  questioned. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH   IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         47 

observes  very  sensibly  :^^^  Sei  §£  /.at  XsYOVia?  y,at  ypa^ovxa?  otc 
pLaXtffTa  :r£ipaa6(Z5  xaia  Ta  xsTupafpLeva  tou?  Xbyouq  aTuoScSovat  itat 
juvsOt^etv  auTOug  xouxot?  axajtv  e?  sxotVou  ^®^  xpri5^(xi.  Kat  xepi  [xev 
[ouv]  Tou  Asyetv  Ivts^vo)?,  >tat  ev  lot?  tBcot?  /.ai  Iv  TOt(;  vtotvot?  aywat 
%av  Tat?  7up6?  TOU?  aXXou?  ojitXtat?,  evTSuOev  TuXetaTa?  xai  Ts^vtz-WTaTa? 
a^oppia?  £^opL£v  •  ypri  hi  %at  tyjv  ETutpilXfitav  xot£t(TOat  [xy]  [j,6vov  TC£pt  tou? 
Xoyou?,  aX).a  xat  7C£pt  tov  ftov  tov  auTOu,  Staxoaptouvxa  Tat?  tSfiat?  Tat? 
£tpY;[jL£vat?.  (ju(jL^aXX£Tat  vap  yj  7U£pt   tov  ptov  xapaaxsuY]  y,ai  xpo?  to 

X£t0£tV  Xat  XpO?  TO  SO^YJ?  £Xt£t%OU?  TUY)jaV£tV. 

Although  Plutarch  cannot  be  classed  among  the  writers  on  rhet- 
oric, in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  one  passage  in  particular  of 
his  writings  ought  to  be  mentioned  here.  In  his  treatise  "Ow  the 
Education  of  Children"  Plutarch  says:^*^  "For  perfection  is  only 
attained  by  neither  speaking  nor  acting  at  random.  As  the  proverb 
says  'Perfection  is  difficult  to  attain'.  But  extemporary  oratory  is 
reckless  and  thoughtless  (oi  B'auToaxs^tot  twv  Xoycov  xoXXyj?  £U7£p£ta? 
xat  p'aStoupYta  £tat  xX'^p£t?)  and  knows  neither  where  to  begin  nor 
to  end.  And  besides  their  other  shortcomings,  extemporary  speak- 
ers fall  into  great  disproportion  and  repetition,^®^  but  preparation 
does   not   allow   the   speech   to   go   beyond   its   due   proportion. ^®° 

There  seem  to  be  two  possible  ways  of  interpreting  the  passage  of  Anax- 
imenes ;  it  may  be  that  the  speaker  who  is  to  reply  to  the  charge  of  prepar- 
ation has  written  his  own  speech,  as  Demosthenes,  for  example,  wrote  the 
Midias  speech,  and  so  replies  to  his  opponents.  The  other  possibility  is  that 
the  speaker  is  going  to  deliver  a  speech  which  has  been  written  for  him,  and 
which  he  has  memorized  and  will  speak  as  his  own.  Certainty  on  this  point 
seems  impossible.    The  passage  could  be  used  to  support  either  view. 

^""Rhet.  Gr.  I,  239,  Sp. 

^  Cf .  p.  40,  n.  153  fin ;  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  9,  7. 

^'^Dr  Ediicat.  Puer.  9.  evxEQCia  and  *QQt6iovQYia  have  a  disparaging  moral 
sense  here.  The  translation  given  by  Goodwin  renders  the  words  "easy  and 
facile".  I  hardly  think  this  is  the  sense  in  this  passage. 

^^  Sears  (p.  412)  says  of  George  William  Curtis :  "The  lessons  which  he 
left  to  youth  of  kindred  aspirations  were,  first,  that  nothing  should  be  spared 
in  the  preparation  for  public  speech,  even  to  the  perfect  memorizing  which 
has  all  the  force  of  extemporization  without  its  inevitable  blemishes  of  repeti- 
tion and  disproportion,  of  things  better  left  unsaid,  of  good  things  arriving 
too  late  to  be  uttered,  and  a  general  deterioration  in  the  speaker  who  follows 
it  exclusively". 

^*°  Hume,  in  his  Essay  on  Eloquence,  says  a  defect  of  modern  orators  is 
that  "their  great  affectation  of  extemporary  discourses  has  made  them  reject 


48  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Pericles,  as  we  hear  from  tradition,  when  called  upon  by  the  people 
to  speak,  frequently  refused,  saying  that  he  was  unprepared.  In 
like  manner,  too,  Demosthenes,  the  zealous  follower  of  Pericles  in 
affairs  of  state,  when  the  Athenians  called  upon  him  for  his  advice, 
refused  to  give  it,  saying  'I  am  not  prepared'.  But,  perhaps  you 
will  say,  this  statement  is  without  authority,  and  mere  tradition. 
However,  in  his  speech  against  Midias,  Demosthenes  plainly  sets 
forth  the  utility  of  preparation.  At  any  rate,  he  says:^^^  'I  ac- 
knowledge, men  of  Athens,  that  I  have  considered  my  speech,  and 
I  do  not  deny  that  I  have  prepared  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability ;  for 
I  should  have  been  but  a  simpleton  if,  after  having  suffered  so  much 
at  his  hands,  and  even  still  suffering,  I  had  neglected  how  to  plead 
my  cause  before  you'.^^^  Not  that  I  would  altogether  reject  ex- 
temporary oratory,  or  deny  that  one  should  practice  it  on  fitting 
occasions,  but  it  ought  to  be  used  as  one  would  take  medicine  (i.  e. 
sparingly  and  occasionally).  Until  the  child  reaches  man's  estate,^®* 
I  would  advocate  no  extemporary  speaking,  but  when  his  power  to 
speak  is  rooted,  then  it  is  fitting  that  at  critical  times  his  words 
should  flow  freely.  For  just  as  those  who  have  been  for  a  long 
time  in  fetters,  stumble  if  they  are  afterwards  freed,  not  being  able 
to  walk  because  they  have  long  been  accustomed  to  their  bonds,^^*  in 


all  order  and  method,  which  seems  so  requisite  to  argument,   and  without 
which  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  produce  any  entire  conviction  on  the  mind." 
^"  XXI,  191. 

"*  See  the  comment  on  this  admission  by  Gregory  of  Corinth  {Rhet.  Gr. 
VII,  1271,  Walz). 

""  Practice  in  extemporary  speaking  clearly  held  a  place  in  the  schools. 

Crassus  advocates  it  (Cic.  de.  Or.  I,  33,  150) in  istis  ipsis  exer- 

citationibus  etsi  utile  est  etiam  subito  saepe  dicere;  also  I,  60,  257,  .  .  .  . 
subitae  ad  propositas  causas  exercitationes.  Compare  Cic.  ad  Fam.  IX,  18,  3. 
Quintilian  (II,  4,  15-16)'  condemns  extemporary  garrulity  in  boys;  they  should 
learn  to  speak  correctly  before  they  speak  rapidly.  There  will  be  a  proper 
time  for  acquiring  facility  of  speech. 

It  was  usual  for  the  pupils  to  learn  by  heart  what  they  had  composed  and 
repeat  it  on  a  certain  day.  This  practice  Quintilian  condemns,  and  would  have 
them  instead  learn  portions  of  the  speeches  of  others  (II,  7,  1-5;  cf.  also  I, 
II,  14): 

"*For  exactly  the  same  figure  see  Alcidamas  16-17,  as  describing  the 
mind  of  the  writer  who  tries  extemporary  speech.  Cf.  p.  31. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH   IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         49 

the  same  way,  those  who  for  a  long  time  have  bound  their  speech 
fast,  if  at  any  time  they  must  speak  at  a  moment's  notice,  keep  none 
the  less  the  same  character  of  expression.  But  to  allow  those  who 
are  still  children  to  speak  extempore,  is  to  give  cause  for  the  highest 
possible  degree  of  idle  talk". 

Elsewhere  Plutarch  advocates  preparation  of  speeches  if  such 
preparation  be  possible.  The  man  who  takes  part  in  public  life  must 
of  course  know  how  to  speak,^^^  and  the  speech  he  delivers  before 
the  people  ought  to  be  premeditated.^^®  The  oration  should  not  be 
over-elaborate,^^^  but  fitting  preparation  is  necessary  if  the  orator 
is  to  speak  before  a  numerous  and  honorable  assembly.^^^ 

Although  Plutarch  advises  preparation  when  preparation  is  pos- 
sible, he  knows  that  there  arise  many  occurrences  in  political  life 
when  it  is  imperative  that  the  orator  should  speak  at  once,  and  for 
this  he  should  be  trained.^^^  Plutarch's  orator,  in  short,  would  be 
one  who,  while  he  understood  the  value  of  preparation  and  would 
employ  it  wherever  he  could,  would  still  be  able  to  express  himself 
in  a  creditable  manner  on  any  subject  which  suddenly  came  up  for 
discussion. 2^^ 

Hermogenes,  in  his  treatise  on  eloquence,^^^  makes  one  excellent 
point  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  preparation  for  a  speech. 
He  believes  that  if  a  speaker  is  making  a  speech  in  the  deliberative 
branch  of  oratory,  he  ought  to  admit  that  he  has  prepared  what  he 
is  going  to  say.  On  other  occasions  he  may,  if  he  wishes,  pretend  to 
extemporize:  "When  shall  an  orator  pretend  to  extemporize?  Of 
the  three  branches  of  rhetoric,  in  a  speech  belonging  to  the  advisory 
class,  he  especially  ought  even  to  admit  that  he  has  deliberated.  For 
the  one  who  seeks  advice  will  not  suffer  the  one  who  gives  it  to  say 
whatever  comes  into  his  head,  but  on  the  contrary,  the  adviser  ought 
to  admit  that  he  has  considered  and  thought  the  matter  out,  like 
Demosthenes  when  he  says  ^^^  **but  as  it  seemed,  that  crisis  called 

""  Pol.  Praec.  802  A. 

^''  Pol  Praec.  803  F,  and  c.  9. 

"'  Pol.  Praec.  802  E-F. 

^■^^Ilwg  av  Tig eji'  (XQexfj  80  C-D. 

^«*Fo/.  Praec.  803F-804A. 

^^  In  the  "Lives"  Plutarch  tells  of  the  actual  practice  of  the  orators. 

^""Rhet.  Gr.  II,  426-56,  Sp.  Cf.  n.  185. 

^  XVIII,  172. 


50  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

for  a  man  who  was  not  only  well-disposed  towards  you,  and  wealthy, 
but  one  who  had  also  followed  matters  most  closely  from  the  be- 
ginning." ^^^  For  this  ought  to  belong  to  the  counsellor,  (namely), 
experience  in  affairs.  But  in  a  forensic  speech,  even  if  you  have 
come  prepared  (ea/,£[jLiJLevo?  i^'/.y)?),  pretend  to  speak  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment  (auToSev  Xeyeiv),  just  as  all  the  ancients  do:  for  al- 
though they  all  wrote,  they  pretend  to  extemporize  (a^sSia^stv). 
Why?  Because  the  judge  looks  with  suspicion  upon  the  orator,  and 
fears  that  he  may  be  deceived  by  the  power  of  rhetoric.  This  very 
characteristic,  then,  is  part  of  the  orator's  skill,  to  seem  to  speak 
extempore,  in  order  that  thus,  too,  the  judge  may  be  misled:  and 
introductions  which  they  have  long  considered,  they  speak  as  if 
they  had  found  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  and  the  heads  of  their 
discourse,  as  if  they  called  them  to  mind  on  a  sudden  in  the  progress 
of  each  case.  But  in  the  encomiastic  type  of  speeches,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  you  at  times  from  using  both :  both  acknowledged 
written  preparation  and  pretended  extemporization". ^^^ 

Gregory  of  Corinth  ^^^  comments  in  some  detail  on  this  passage  of 
Hermogenes.  He  agrees  with  Hermogenes  that  the  one  who  gives 
advice  should  be  a  man  of  experience,  and  quotes  Euripides  to  prove 
his  point.-°^  A  confession  of  preparation  in  this  branch  of  speak- 
ing is,  therefore,  admissible.  Gregory,  like  Hermogenes,  com- 
mends pretended  extemporization  in  the  judicial  branch  of  oratory 
as  disarming  the  suspicion  of  the  judge.  In  encomiastic  speeches, 
Gregory  agrees  that  the  orator  may  use  both  methods,  but  adds  that 
he  found  in  one  of  the  ancient  waiters  a  statement  that  while  one 
could  admit  preparation  and  also  pretend  to  extemporize  in  encomi- 
astic speeches,  one  must  not  employ  both  methods  in  the  same  speech, 
for  the  two  things  are  irreconcilable  with  each  other.^*^^ 

^°^  Hermogenes'  example  is  not  a  good  one.  In  the  Demosthenes  passage 
there  is  only  the  remotest  kind  of  implication  of  preparation. 

The  slight  differences  between  our  text  of  the  Demosthenes'  passage  and 
that  quoted  by  Hermogenes  is  probably  to  be  explained  on  the  theory  that 
the  rhetorician  was  quoting  from  memory.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that 
Hermogenes  had  access  to  a  different  text. 

"^  Rhet.  Gr.  11,  440-41  Sp. 

'''Rhet.  Gr.  VII,  1268  ff.,  Walz. 

^°®  Phoen.  529 :  aXX'  'f\nKeiQia  e'xei  xi  Xelai  xcov  vecov  aoq)c6T8QOv,  and  453 : 
Ppadeig  fie  \iv^oi  nXeloxov  avvovoiv  oocpov. 

^^  Gregory  later  (p.  1273)  tries  to  explain  this. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         5 1 

According  to  Gregory,  the  view  that  the  adviser  should  take 
thought  and  prepare  was  held  as  well  by  Homer  ^^^  as  by  Demos- 
thenes.'^^ 

In  explaining  why  pretended  extemporization  is  best  in  a  ju- 
dicial speech  Gregory  says,^^**  again  quoting  Euripides,^^^  that  truth 
is  simple.  The  man  who  pleads  a  true  cause  will  need  no  prepar- 
ation or  consideration  ([xeXsTY],  c-^i^iq),  and  so  even  if  orators  have 
prepared  their  speeches  beforehand,  they  pretend  to  speak  extempo- 
raneously. This  is  the  explanation  of  the  prayer  to  Apollo  in  Poly- 
xenus'  speech  and  of  the  remarks  of  Aristogeiton  in  the  speech 
against  Hyperides,  which  he  pretends  that  he  has  just  remembered. 

Aristides  mentions  pretended  extemporization  as  one  of  the  many 
ways  of  rendering  one's  speech  credible.  After  giving  examples  of 
the  pretended  recollection  of  an  important  point,^^^  and  the  pre- 
tended search  for  a  decree  "which  ought  to  be  somewhere  there,"^^^ 
he  adds  :  ''for  to  introduce  one  not  as  having  made  one's  preparations, 
but  as  searching  at  the  critical  time,  oiJLOtov  edTtv  aOxoaxs^^Cj)  x.ai 
a^toxtffxov  xotet  tov  Xofov.^^* 

The  author  of  the  treatise  ''On  the  Sublime,"  ^^^  by  virtue  of  his 

''"^P.  1270.  Homer,  //.  IX,  74;  X,  17;  XIV,  3;  Od.  192. 

««I,  9  (St.)  r  XVIII,  p.  284. 

^^T.  1271  (Walz). 

'^^Phoen.  469:  djtX,oC5  o  m-O^o?  xfig  dXri^Eiag  ecpv.    Or.  491. 

^Dem.  XXIV,  122;  and  XL,  58;  cf.  Blass,  III,  150-161. 

^  Dem.  XX,  84. 

^^*Rhet.  Gr.  II,  490,  Sp.  Instances  of  the  employment  of  such  devices  may 
be  found  in  large  numbers  in  the  orators;  for  example  the  interpolation  of 
remarks  while  a  decree  is  being  sought,  or  between  the  command  to  read  a 
decree  and  its  actual  reading:  Dem.  XVIII,  179;  212;  218-219;  XXI,  108; 
XX,  84-7.  So  in  Dem.  XIX,  213-15,  the  orator  has  the  witnesses  called  and 
then  goes  on  speaking  for  a  time  while  they  are  supposedly  standing  at  the 
bar,  and  this  too,  in  a  speech  which  was  probably  never  delivered  (cf.  p. 
128,  n.  273). 

'"^The  authorship  of  the  treatise  "On  the  Sublime"  has  been  much  de- 
bated in  late  years.  No  doubt  seems  to  have  been  felt  by  the  early  editors. 
The  editio  princeps,  published  at  Basle  in  1554,  by  Francis  Robortello,  at- 
tributed the  work  to  Dionysius  Longinus,  and  the  statement  seems  to  have 
been  unquestioned  by  all  the  editors,  translators,  and  critics  who  flourished 
during  the  next  two  centuries.  In  1808,  however,  doubt  was  aroused  by  the 
discovery  by  the  Italian  scholar  Amati  that  one  of  the  Vatican  manuscripts 
read  Aiovvaiov  r\  Aoyyi'vou  jieqi  uil^oug. 


52  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

subject  advocates  a  care  in  the  choice  of  words  which  is  incompatible 
with  extemporary  speech.  He  says  in  one  passage:  "Now  the 
choice  of  proper  and  striking  words  attracts  and  charms  the  hearers 
in  a  wonderful  degree,  (and  this  choice  is  the  most  important 
pursuit  of  all  orators  and  writers),  since  it  is  through  its  agency  that 
there  is  caused  to  blossom  upon  speeches,  as  upon  the  most  beauti- 
ful statues,  grandeur,  beauty,  mellowness,  dignity,  power,  strength, 
and  whatever  admirable  qualities  there  may  be  in  addition,  and 
breathes  into  things,  as  it  were,  a  kind  of  living  voice.  Upon  this 
fact  it  is  superfluous  to  dilate  in  detail  to  those  who  know  it  well."  ^^* 
An  outburst  of  passion  should  have  the  appearance  of  extempo- 
rization, if  it  is  to  produce  its  greatest  effect  upon  the  audience,  but 
it  is  only  the  appearance  of  spontaneity,  produced  by  the  skillful  use 
of  figures.^^^ 

At  present  critical  opinion  seems  to  be  against  the  traditional  view  that 
the  treatise  is  the  work  of  Longinus.  There  is  no  good  evidence  for  at- 
tributing the  production  to  the  Longinus  of  history;  it  is  not  listed  among 
his  works  by  Suidas,  Porphyry,  or  others,  nor  is  it  mentioned  or  quoted  by 
a^iy  writer  of  antiquity.  Furthermore,  internal  evidence,  as  Roberts  has 
shown,  points  to  the  first  century  rather  than  the  third  as  the  probable  period 
of  the  production  of  the  treatise. 

Additional  information  on  the  subject  may  be  found  in  W.  R.  Roberts* 
excellent  introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  work  (Cambridge,  1899),  and  in 
the  following  articles:  Buchenau,  G. :  De  Scriptore  Libri  liegi  ''Ytpoug^ 
(Mar.  Catt.  1849);  Egger,  A.  E. :  Longin  est-il  veritahlement  fauteur  du 
Trait e  du  Sublime f  (In  his  Essai  sur  Vhistoire  de  la  critique  chez  les  Grecs 
[Paris,  1849]  524-533);  Francs,  L.  B.  des :  Utrum  Dionysio  Longino  ad- 
scribendus  sit  liber  qui  Uegi  "Yil^ovg  inscribitur.  (Grat.  1862)  ;  Winkler,  A. : 
De  Longini  qui  fertur  libello  XIeqI  ''Yil^ovg  (Hal.  1870);  Martens.  L. :  De 
libello  ITeqi  "Yipoug  (Bonn,  1877);  Rohde,  E. :  Zu  der  Schrift  Hzqi  ^'Yapoug 
(Rhein.  Mus.  N.  F.  1880,  XXXV,  309-312;  Pessonneaux,  R. :  De  I'auteur 
du  Traite  du  Sublime  (Annates  de  la  Faculte  des  Lettres  de  Bordeaux,  1883,, 
V,  291-303;  Coblentz,  B. :  De  libelli  IIeqi  "Yi^Joug  auctore  (Argent.  1888); 
Hultzsch,  T. :  Zum  Anonymus  IIeqI  "YiJ^ovg  (Jahrb.  f.  Class.  Phil.,  1890, 
CXLI,  369-370)  ;  Brighentius,  E. :  De  libelli  Hegi  "YilJoug  auctore  dissertatio, 
(Patav.  1895). 

^^''De  Sublimitate  30,  i  {Rhet.  Gr.  I,  279,  I,  Sp.).  Elsewhere  (I,  4;  Rhet. 
Gr.  I,  246,  4)  the  same  author  says:  "Elevated  language  does  not  produce 
the  effect  of  persuasion  upon  the  audience,  but  that  of  ecstacy.  In  every  way 
and  at  every  time  imposing  speech,  with  the  effect  it  produces,  has  greater 
power  than  that  of  persuasion,  or  that  which  aims  at  gratification." 

^"^ De  Sublim.  18,  2  (I,  270,  Sp.).  In  this  passage  the  author  is  discussing: 
the  figure  of  question  and  answer  as  a  means  of  simulating  a  natural  out- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         53 

According  to  Theon,  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  become  an  orator 
without  the  daily  drill  of  writing.  Neither  the  speeches  of  the 
ancients,  nor  the  art  of  rhetoric  will  help  the  would-be  orator,  unless 
he  disciplines  himself  by  writing  from  day  to  day:  "But  just  as  for 
those  who  would  be  painters,  it  is  of  no  advantage  to  look  at  the 
works  of  Apelles  and  Protogenes  and  Antiphilos  unless  they  them- 
selves try  their  hands  at  painting,  so,  too,  for  those  who  would  be 
orators,  there  is  no  help  in  the  speeches  of  the  ancients,  nor  in  the 
multitude  of  their  thoughts,  nor  in  their  purity  of  style,  nor  in  the 
harmony  of  their  composition,  nor  is  there  any  advantage  in  hearing 
about  elegance,  unless  each  one,  by  his  own  efforts,  trains  himself 
by  writing  every  day."^^^ 

Among  the  less  important  rhetoricians  there  are  two  slight  ref- 
erences to  the  subject  of  extemporary  speech.  Alexander  ^^^  has 
the  following  observation :  lait  5s  5ta  twv  (jxw^"^^^  Soxetv  xa(  auTO- 

XotTuoq  XoYog;"^^*^  tq  oGto)  ''toutc  [jitTtpou  [is  xap^XOsv  sixstv."^^^  Ta  YC«p 
TOtauTa  TY]v  Tou  Soxstv  auToOsv  Xsystv  sfA^aaiv  xoist.    Tiberius  has  even 

burst  of  passion.  Later  (22,  3;  I,  273,  Sp.)  he  speaks  of  hyperbata  as  use- 
ful for  the  same  purpose.  For  the  same  idea,  see  Demetrius,  de  Elocutione, 
27,  and  300. 

*^* Theon,  Progymnasmata,  c.  1  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  62,  Sp.).  Elsewhere  (c.  2; 
II,  65,  Sp.)  Theon  gives  an  interesting  glimpse  of  the  method  of  teaching 
which  he  believes  correct.  He  says  that  the  teacher  should  select  from  the 
ancient  orators  good  examples  of  various  kinds  of  discourse,  among  them  the 
so-called  commonplace,  and  assign  them  to  be  memorized  by  the  pupils. 

On  the  stress  laid  by  Cicero  and  Quintilian  on  writing  see  p.  54  ff. 
Compare  Cicero,  Brut.  LXXI,  250,  of  Marcellus'  practice. 

'^'Rhet  Gr.  Ill,  14,  7-8.  Cf.  also  Rhet.  Gr.  Ill,  12,  15  ff.  Quintilian  (IV, 
5,  4)  recommends  the  introduction  of  such  expressions  as  giving  an  air  of 
spontaneity  to  the  speech. 

^^°  As  far  is  I  am  aware  this  exact  sequence  of  words  does  not  occur  in 
Demosthenes.    The  nearest  approaches  to  it  are  the  following: 

XXIII,  82:  "^Agd  Tig  fifxiv  exi  XoiJtog  eaxi  vojxog; 
XXI,  99 :  Ti  ovv  uJioA-outov  ; 

XXIV,  99:  xal  Ti  XoiJtov  ea^'  fmiv  akV  r\  zaxakeXvo^ai ; 

XXV,  81 :  Ti  ovv  XoiJtov,  &  avbgeq  'A-^vaioi ; 
XLI,  18 :  Ti  exi  Xomov  ; 

LV,  18 :  Ti  XoiKow  5i  axbgeq  Sixaoxal  JtQog  decov ; 
'^^Dem.  XIX,  234;  XXI,  no. 


54  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

less  to  say  :^^^  auTOaxeStov  S'la-rtv  oiav  TcpoaxotYjTai  apit  vsvoir3/,svat,  olov 
"o  TOtvuv  ixexaju  Xsywv  eveOu[JL'»iOY]v'V^^  >^at  xaXiv,  "touti  yap  au  jjLi>tpou 
[xe  xapTJXOev.^^* 

Among  the  Romans  the  subject  of  extemporary  speech  was 
treated  by  Cicero,  Quintilian,^^^  and  Tacitus.  Cicero,  in  his  treatise, 
de  Oratore,  discusses  in  the  person  of  Crassus,  the  worth  of  exer- 
cise in  extemporary  speaking.  In  considering  methods  of  training 
students,  Cicero  says:  ''Although  in  those  exercises  (those  of  the 
students)  it  is  useful  even  frequently  to  speak  on  the  sudden,  yet  it 
is  more  advantageous,  after  taking  time  to  consider,  to  speak  with 
greater  preparation  and  accuracy.  But  the  chief  point  of  all  is, 
that  which,  to  say  the  truth,  we  hardly  ever  practice,  for  it  requires 
great  labor  which  most  of  us  avoid;  I  mean,  to  write  as  much  as 
possible.  Writing  "^  is  said  to  be  the  best  and  most  excellent 
modeller  and  teacher  of  oratory,  and  not  without  reason.  For  if 
what  is  meditated  and  considered  easily  surpasses  sudden  and  ex- 
temporary speech,  a  constant  and  diligent  habit  of  writing  will  surely 
be  of  more  value  than  meditation  and  consideration  itself ;  ^^''  since 
all  the  arguments  relating  to  the  subject  on  which  we  write,  whether 
they  are  suggested  by  art  or  by  a  certain  power  of  genius  and  under- 
standing, will  readily  present  themselves  and  occur  to  us  while  we 
examine  and  contemplate  it  in  the  full  light  of  our  intellect ;  and  all 
the  thoughts  and  words  which  are  the  most  expressive  of  their  kind, 
must  of  necessity  come  under  and  submit  to  the  keenness  of  our 
judgment  while  writing;  and  a  fair  arrangement  and  collocation  of 
words  is  gained  by  writing  in  a  certain  rhythm  and  measure,  not 
poetical  but  oratorical.    Such  are  the  qualities  which  bring  applause 

"^'Rhet.  Gr.  111,66,  28,  Sp. 

'^  Dem.  XXIV,  122. 

=^Dem.  XIX,  234;  XXI,  no. 

^"  Quintilian  (III,  i,  19  ff.)  gives  a  list  of  writers  on  the  theory  of  elo- 
quence beginning  with  Cato,  the  Censor.  Cf.  Boelte,  F. :  De  Artium  Scrip- 
toribus  Latinis  Quaestiones,  1886. 

""Stilus.  Compare  the  "stilus  exercitatus"  of  Orator,  XLIV,  150;  also 
Brutus,  XXV,  96;  Quint,  IX,  4,  114:  "practice  in  writing,  accordingly,  will 
qualify  us  sufficiently  for  observing  due  numbers  in  prose,  and  enable  us  to 
pour  them  forth  in  a  similar  way  extemporaneously." 

"^Cicero  seems  to  have  three  different  stages  of  speech  in  mind:  (i)'pure 
extemporization,  subitam  et  fortuitam  orationem,  (2)  a  speech  which  one 
has  had  time  to  think  over  and  prepare  in  his  mind,  (3)  the  stage  of  writing. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         55 

and  admiration  to  good  orators ;  nor  will  any  man  ever  attain  them 
unless  after  long  and  great  practice  in  writing,  however  resolutely 
he  may  have  exercised  himself  in  extemporary  speech ;  and  he  who 
comes  to  speak  after  practice  in  writing  brings  this  advantage  with 
him,  that  though  he  speak  at  the  call  of  the  moment,  yet  what  he 
says  will  bear  a  resemblance  to  something  written ;  ^^^  and  if  ever, 
when  he  comes  to  speak,  he  brings  anything  with  him  in  writing, 
the  rest  of  his  speech,  when  he  departs  from  what  is  written  will 
flow  on  in  a  similar  strain.^^^    As  when  a  boat  has  once  been  impelled 

^*Two  interpretations  of  this  passage  seem  possible:  (i)  the  general 
habit  of  writing  will  impart  a  finish  to  the  orator's  style  when  he  reaches  the 
stage  of  being  able  to  speak  extempore;  (2)  if  a  part  of  the  speech  be  written, 
it  will  give  finish  to  that  part  which  is  extemporized. 

Cicero  may  have  mixed  the  two ;  the  figure  of  the  boat  would  apply  only 
to  the  second.  Either  interpretation  supports  the  thesis  that  writing  is  an 
aid  to  extempore  speaking. 

^  There  is  hardly  any  doubt  that  the  written  passages  were  memorized. 
Antonius,  in  speaking  of  the  Greek  teachers  of  rhetoric  says  (de  Or.  II,  19, 
78-9)':  "But  their  whole  method  of  teaching,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  is  ex- 
tremely ridiculous They  make  five  parts,  as  it  were,  of  elo- 
quence :  to  find  what  you  are  to  say,  to  arrange  what  you  have  invented,  then 
to  clothe  it  in  proper  language,  then  to  commit  it  to  memory  (memoriae 
mandare),  and  at  last  to  deliver  it  with  due  action  and  elocution;  a  task 
surely  requiring  no  very  abstruse  study.  For  who  would  not  know  without 
assistance  that  no  one  can  make  a  speech  unless  he  has  settled  what  he  is  to 
say,  and  in  what  words,  and  in  what  order,  and  remembers  it?"  Elsewhere 
(I,  31,  142)  Crassus  mentions  the  five  necessary  things  for  an  orator  to 
consider  in  his  speech :  "reperire  primum  quid  diceret,  deinde  inventa  non 
solum  ordine  sed  etiam  momento  quodam  atque  iudicio  dispensare  atque 
componere ;  tum  ea  denique  vestire  atque  ornare  oratione ;  post  memoria 
saepire;  ad  extremum  agere  cum  dignitate  ac  venustate." 

Again  we  are  told  {de  Or.  I,  34,  157)'  that  the  memory  must  be  exercised 
"by  learning  by  heart,  word  for  word,  as  many  of  our  own  writings  and  those 

of  others  as  possible : ediscendis  ad  verbum  quam  plurimis  et 

nostris  scriptis  et  alienis." 

Another  thing  which  would  imply  memorization  of  the  prepared  portions 
is  the  fact  that  Cicero  insists  that  the  memory  is  to  be  used  as  well  for  words 
as  for  facts:  de  Or.  I,  5,   18:    (memoria)    nisi  custos  inventis  cogitatisque 

rebus  et  verbis  adhibeatur also  I,  15,  64;  21,  94,  (compare  Tac. 

Dial.  c.  30,  fin.).  Committing  to  memory  is  one  of  the  regular  parts  of  pre- 
paring a  speech :  de  Or.  II,  19,  79.  In  Aristotle  there  is  no  mention  of  com- 
mitting to  memory.  There  is  merely  a  discussion  of  style  and  delivery.  Here, 
between  style  and  delivery  there  is  committing  to  memory.  De  Or.  II,  87,  355, 
implies  memorization :    omnem  scriptum  verborum  apparatum    (cf.  also  II, 


56  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

forward,  though  the  rowers  suspend  their  efforts,  the  vessel  herself 
still  keeps  her  motion  and  course  during  the  intermission  of  the  im- 
pulse and  force  of  the  oars,  so,  in  a  continued  stream  of  oratory, 
when  written  matter  fails,  the  rest  of  the  speech  maintains  a  similar 
flow,  being  impelled  by  the  resemblance  and  force  acquired  from 
what  was  written."  ^^° 

88,  359),  as  does  III,  9,  33.  Oratorical  rhythm  (de  Or.  I,  33,  151  and  else- 
where) would  also  imply  verbal  memorization.  "Memoria  iuris  consultorum 
(de  Or.  I,  28,  128)  probably  refers  only  to  memory  of  facts. 

It  was  the  general  practice  of  orators,  and  particularly  of  Cicero,  to 
memorize  the  essential  parts,  and  particularly  the  introductions  of  their 
speeches  (Quint.  X,  7,  29-30;  cf.  p.  164,  n.  414).  There  is  an  amusing  in- 
stance of  this  practice  in  Lucian's  "Zeus  in  Tragics"  658-9.  Zeus  is  to  make 
a  speech  to  the  Gods  and  has  forgotten  the  exordium  he  has  prepared.  By 
the  advice  of  Hermes,  he  adapts  the  opening  of  Demosthenes'  First  Olynthiac 
to  his  needs,  and  when  his  memory  for  the  orator's  words  fails,  is  carried 
on  into  his  speech  without  trouble.  Lucian  says  that  such  an  adaptation  is 
"the  fashionable  method  with  speakers  nowadays."  Apparently  it  was  also 
a  common  practice  for  the  orators  to  commence  with  a  quotation  from 
Homer. 

The  French  lecturer,  M.  Sarcey,  tried  to  learn  his  exordium  by  heart, 
thinking  that  by  doing  so,  all  trace  of  emotion  would  disappear,  but  found  the 
plan  a  failure  (p.  81 ;  p.  160)  ;  he  believes  that  the  audience  always  knows 
the  moment  a  speaker  passes  from  recitation  to  pure  improvisation  (p.  161). 

There  is  a  bare  possibility  that  an  orator  may  have  used  his  manuscript 
for  the  written  portions,  but  it  is  not  likely.  Such  great  reliance  on  the 
actual  written  text  would  be  an  effective  check  on  any  attempt  at  extemporary 
eloquence.  Modern  speakers  agree  that  one  must  not  form  the  habit  of  rely- 
ing on  one's  manuscript  if  one  ever  wishes  to  speak  extempore. 

^'^  de  Or.  I,  33,  150  ff.  The  Greek  rhetorician,  Alcidamas,  held  exactly  the 
opposite  view:  cf.  p.  29  and  n.  151;  Sarcey,  p.  158.  Antonius  (de  Or.  I,  60, 
257)  finds  fault  with  this  system  of  training  as  too  severe. 

The  phrase  used  by  Antonius,  "accuratae  ac  meditatae  commentationes" 
is  closely  paralleled  in  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  6,  20:  "accuratam  meditatamque 
orationem."  Meditatus  is  a  word  frequently  used  by  Tacitus.  It  occurs  once 
in  an  absolute  and  active  sense  in  Dial.  c.  10,  32  (cf.  Gudeman's  note  where 
Seneca,  Ep.  20,  12,  is  quoted  as  a  parallel).  As  a  passive  participle  in  the 
sense  of  well-prepared,  it  appears  often ;  for  example,  Ann.  XIV,  55 ;  Hist. 
IV,  68,  27.  As  far  as  I  know,  the  verb  meditor  occurs  but  once  in  Quintilian 
(X,  3,  30)  where  it  is  used  of  Demosthenes  "practicing"  his  oratory  on  the 
sea-shore.  The  noun  meditatio  is  used  by  Quintilian  in  the  sense  of  what  he 
later  calls  "scholasticae  controversiae"  (IV,  2,  92;  97;  Sen.  Cont.  I,  Praef. 
12;  Tac.  Dial.  14,  23)  or  \ieXixai  (cf.  Spalding's  note  on  Quint.  X,  i,  70), 
in  contrast  to  actual  pleadings  in  the  law-court  (IV,  2,  29).    The  word  appears 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         57 

He  elsewhere  speaks  of  frequent  practice  which  is  superior  to 
the  precepts  of  all  masters,^^^  calls  the  pen  ''the  creator  of  elo- 
quence," ^^^  and  believes  that  nothing  has  so  much  power  as  writing 
to  produce  skill  in  speaking.^^^ 


again  (X,  i,  70)  of  the  formal  speeches,  M-eA.exai,  meditationes,  in  the  plays  of 
Meander.  In  Tacitus  (Dial.  14,  4)  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  of  "school 
declamations."    These  are  ridiculed  by  Juvenal,  Sat.  I,  15  (cf.  Mayor's  note). 

The  correspondence  in  meaning  of  meditari  (Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  30,  136; 
S2,  148;  Brut.  LXXXVIII,  302)  with  ixeXexdv  is  clear  enough  (ci.Cnrt.  Greek 
Verb,  p.  224)  but  the  best  authorities  now  deny  any  radical  connection  (cf. 
Curt.  Gr.  Et.  I^  9,  2>7^;  Vanicek,  Et.  Worterh.  pp.  670,  1216).  These 
words  and  the  nouns  derived  from  them  are  often  used  of  the  actual  decla- 
mation (see  above;  also  Philostratus,  Vit.  Soph.  I,  22,  3;  I,  25,  17,  of  a 
declamation  which  had  been  written  out  and  published;  I,  25,  22;  II,  8,  3,  of 
a  written  speech;  II,  24,  i),  and  also  of  the  close  preparation  of  a  speech 
even  if  the  exact  character  of  the  preparation  is  not  specified:  cf.  ^sch.  I, 
30:  T(ov  XoYcov  hm\iEXt\M\xa.;   Plut.  Reip.   Ger.   15,  fin.:   'IcpixgaxTig  fie  xal 

M-eXexag    Xoytov   jioiovpiEvog   ev   oixcp On   Hearing,   38    E:    xal 

XoYcov  piev  oiovxai  piddrioiv  elvai  xal  pieXexriv Compare  Tac.  Ann. 

VI,  48,  i;  III,  15,  13;  Arist.  Rhet.  II,  19,  13. 

\iBkix'x\  seems  to  have  referred  primarily  to  a  prepared  speech  or  exer- 
cise, and  is  contrasted  in  Philostratus,  Vit.  Soph.  II,  33,  4,  (628)',  with  ex- 
temporary speech,  but  it  is  also  used  to  include  extemporary  speech :  Philost. 
Vit.  Soph.  II,  4,  4,  (570)  :  xag  jxev  ovv  [xeXexag  a.^)X0G%^bi0vc,  ejtoieixo,  also 
I,  20,  4  (514),  and  pp.  604,  619,  628,  626.  It  was  also  the  common  word  U€ed 
for  the  deliberative  or  controversial  speech,  either  extemporary  or  prepared, 
delivered  on  the  occasion  of  a  display  (Volkmann,  Rhetorik,  p.  361,  however, 
would  not  agree). 

ne^Exdv  may  also  be  used  of  committing  a  speech  to  memory.  It  is  the 
word  used  in  Phaedrus  228B  of  Phaedrus'  practicing  the  speech  of  Lysias 
which  he  has  committed  to  memory  (cf.  also  228E).  Solon,  when  he  desired 
to  move  the  people  for  a  purpose,  secretly  composed  some  verses  and  got 
them  by  heart,  so  that  he  seemed  to  utter  them  extempore:  EA,EY£ia  be 
HQvqpa  ovv^Ei?  xal  (LiE^-sxTioag  oSoxe  ^eyeiv  djto  oxo^iaxog  x.  x.  X.  (Plut.  Solon, 
c.  VIII,  [82]  )L 

Compare  also  the  phrases  "cura meditatio" :  Tac.  Dial.  c. 

16,  3;  cf.  c.  30,  9;  c.  33,  19;  Ann.  IV,  61;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  i,  i ;  de  Rep.  I, 
21,  34.  A  similar  collocation  is  found  in  Greek:  iieXixr]  xai  im\ieXeia  (Dem. 
XVIII,  308)1 

'''de  Or.  I,  4,  15. 

"^  ad  Earn.  VII,  25,  2.  Cf .  Mathews,  p.  175  ff. 

'"^Brutus,  XXIV,  92.  Cf.  de  Or.  I,  33,  150;  I,  60,  257;  III,  40,  190;  Brut. 
XXV,  96;  ad  Earn.  VII,  25,  2;  Quint.  X,  3;  Aquila  Romanus  de  Eig.  XLVIII. 


58'  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Horace,  most  of  whose  precepts  in  his  ''Art  of  Poetry"  would 
apply  equally  well  to  prose,  has  nothing  to  say  of  extemporary 
speech,  but  preaches  the  doctrine  of  constant  correction  and  re- 
vision.^^"^ 

Quintilian  ^^^  treats  the  subject  of  extemporaneous  speech  with 
his  usual  discernment.  He  regards  with  sincere  admiration  one  who 
possesses  the  gift  of  speaking  well  without  preparation,  yet  believes 
that  if  constant  training  is  not  added  to  it,  the  very  gift  will  be  of 
little  worth. ^^^  He  considers  the  art  of  speaking  to  be  something 
very  important  and  difficult  to  acquire :  ''magnus  est  labor  dicendi ; 
magna  res  est."  ^^''  UnHke  the  earlier  sophists,  he  does  not  believe 
in  the  "oratory  in  twenty  lessons"  system.  He  does  not  adopt  the 
position  of  Antonius  who  says  ''rhetoricen  observationem  quamdam 
esse  non  artem,"  ^^^  but  believes  that  it  is  assisted  by  rules  ''si  tamen 
rectam  viam  non  unam  orbitam  monstrent ;  qua  declinare  qui  credi- 
derit  nefas,  patiatur  necesse  est  illam  per  funes  ingredientium 
tarditatem."  ^^^ 

Some  theory  and  much  practice  ^*^  are  what  the  would-be  orator 
requires,  and  his  practice  is  to  consist,  not  in  speaking,  but  in  writ- 
jj^g  241     u^^Q  must  write"  he  says,  "as  carefully  and  as  much  as 

"^Sat.  I,  10,  69-72;  A.  P.  289  ff.;  291,  386,  438  ff.;  Persius,  I,  106;  V,  162. 

Quintilian  (X,  4,  i)  calls  correction  by  far  the  most  useful  part  of  one's 
studies,  quoting  Cicero's  saying  that  the  pen  is  not  least  serviceable  when  it 
is  used  to  erase  (Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  23,  96;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  18).  The  best  method 
is  to  lay  the  work  by  for  a  time  if  possible.  Correction,  however,  should  have 
its  limits,  lest  over-polishing  wear  the  production  to  nothing  (cf.  Horace, 
A.  P.  24  ff.;  also  Quint.  X.  3,  7-8;  Blair,  Lecture  XIX,  Vol.  II,  p.  53). 

So  it  is  said  that  Daniel  Webster,  in  speaking  of  a  certain  writer,  re- 
marked that  the  only  thing  he  needed  to  learn  was  how  to  scratch  out,  adding 
that  a  very  large  part  of  his  own  life  had  been  spent  in  scratching  out  (Hard- 
wicke,  p.  423). 

^On  Quintilian  as  a  pleader  in  the  law-courts,  see  IV,  i,  19;  2,  86;  VII, 
2,  5;  2,  24;  IX,  2,  73-4;  as  a  professor  of  oratory.  Mart.  II,  90,  i;  Pliny, 
Ep.  II,  14,  10;  VI,  6,  3;  Juv.  VII,  186;  Quint.  I,  Praef.  i;  II,  12,  12;  III,  6, 
68;  IV,  Praef.  2;  X,  i,  125. 

""X,  3,  2. 

^IX,  3,  36.  Cf.  also  II,  13,  15;  17;  Cic.  pro  Mur.  c.  13. 

«'«II,  17,  5;  cf.  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  8,  32. 

**  II,  13,  16. 

*"  For  the  idea  that  the  two  must  go  together  see  Tac.  Dial.  c.  2)2>^  21. 

^The  entire  Third  Chapter  of  Quintilian's  Tenth  Book  is  on  the  utility 
of  writing. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         59 

we  can For  without  this  precaution,  the  very  faculty 

of  speaking  extempore  will  but  furnish  us  with  empty  loquacity 
and  words  born  on  the  lips.  In  writing  are  the  roots,  in  writing  are 
the  foundations  of  eloquence;  by  writing  resources  are  stored  up, 
as  it  were,  in  a  sacred  repository,  whence  they  may  be  drawn  forth 
for  sudden  emergencies,  or  as  circumstances  require."  ^*^ 

Writing,  he  says  elsewhere,^*^  is  the  most  laborious,  but  also  the 
most  advantageous  means  of  improvement  for  the  orator,  and  not 
without  reason  has  Cicero  called  the  pen  "the  best  modeller  and 
teacher  of  eloquence."^** 

It  is  Quintilian's  belief  that  the  ability  to  speak  extempore  is 
absolutely  necessary.  He  says  of  it  "maximus  vero  studiorum 
fructus  est  et  velut  praemium  quoddam  amplissimum  longi  la- 
boris,"  2*^  and  believes  that  he  who  has  not  succeeded  in  acquiring  it, 
will  do  well  to  renounce  the  occupation  of  the  forum,  and  devote  his 
solitary  talent  of  writing  to  some  other  employment.^'*^ 

Often  there  arise  occasions  when  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
speak  on  the  spur  of  the  moment ;  ^*^  if  a  friend  or  client  must  be 

Compare  Lord  Brougham's  remarks  (Inaugural  Address,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  91)  : 
"I  should  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  admitting  of  no  exceptions  that  a  man  will 
speak  well  in  proportion  as  he  has  written  much;  and  that  with  equal  talents, 
he  zmll  be  the  finest  extempore  speaker,  when  no  time  for  preparation  is 
allowed,  who  has  prepared  himself  most  sedulously  when  he  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  delivering  a  premeditated  speech.  All  the  exceptions  I  have  ever 
heard  cited  to  this  principle  are  apparent  ones  only;  proving  nothing  more, 
than  that  some  few  men,  of  rare  genius,  have  become  great  speakers  with- 
out preparation ;  in  no  wise  showing  that  with  preparation  they  would  not 
have  reached  a  much  higher  pitch  of  eloquence."  Compare  Quintilian  II,  17, 
12-13,  p.  126,  n.  264. 

^X,  3,  2;  also  I,  I,  28;  I,  4,  3;  cf.  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  22,  150  ff.  For  the 
opposite  view  see  Alcidamas  14.  These  resources  Sarcey  would  store  up  by 
repeated  improvisations  upon  the  same  theme  (p.  158).  Compare  Phillips 
Brooks,  Lectures  on  Preaching,  170-172. 

**^  X,  3,  I ;  ut  laboris,  sic  utilitatis  etiam  longe  plurimum  adf  ert  stilus ;  cf . 
Blair,  Lecture  XIX,  Vol.  II,  52. 

^**de  Or.  I,  23,  150;  also  Quint.  X,  7,  28. 

""X,  7,  I. 

'"This,  of  course,  is  the  man  attacked  by  Alcidamas,  the  orator  who  is 
incapable  of  departing  at  all  from  his  written  speech.  See  Montaigne's  ex- 
cellent essay  Of  Quick  or  Slow  Speech  (Vol.  I,  p.  44). 

'^'X,  7,  2;  cf.  Anaxim.  Ars.  Rhet.  38  (Rhet.  Gr.  I,  239  Sp.). 


60  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

aided  at  once,  of  what  use  is  an  advocate  who  "secessum  et  silentium 
quaeret,  dum  ilia  verba  fabricentur  et  memoriae  insidant  et  vox 
et  latus  praeparetur  ?"  ^^^  The  speech  which  the  advocate  has  writ- 
ten and  prepared  may  suddenly  be  rendered  useless :  "nam  saepe  ea, 
quae  opinati  sumus,  et  contra  quae  scripsimus,  f  allunt,  ac  tota  subito 
causa  mutatur;  atque  ut  gubernator  ad  incursus  tempestatum  sic 
agenti  ad  varietatem  causarum  ratio  mutanda  est."  ^^^  Time  may  be 
wanting  for  delivering  a  speech  which  has  been  prepared  and  com- 
posed   (laboratam   congestamque studio    actionem) 

with  the  labor  of  whole  days  and  nights,^^^  or  objections  must  be 
met.^^^  It  is  to  provide  against  such  dangers  as  these  that  the  orator 
must  possess  the  ability  to  speak  extempore.  The  habit  will  be  of 
advantage,  however,  only  if  it  has  been  acquired  and  formed  by  a 
course  of  careful  study  and  practice,  *'ut  ipsum  illud  quod  in  se 
rationem  non  habet,  in  ratione  versetur."  ^^^  Quintilian  does  not 
admire  mere  continuity  of  speech  (fortuiti  sermonis  contextum).^^' 
He  says:  "neque  ego  hoc  ago,  ut  extempore  dicere  malit,  sed  ut 
possit."  254 

Although  the  orator  must  be  able  to  speak  extempore,  his  mem- 
ory must  be  trained  not  only  to  remember  what  he  has  written  after 
repeated  perusals,  but  to  observe  the  order  of  thoughts  and  words 
even  in  what  he  has  merely  meditated.     The  ability  to  speak  ex- 

'^X,  7,  3;  cf.  X,  I,  2;  XII,  9,  21;  Alcidamas,  24  ff.;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  39,  10. 
This  is  particularly  true  if  the  orator  is  the  defendant  in  a  case.  The  accuser 
generally  sets  forth  what  he  has  previously  meditated,  the  defendant  has 
frequently  to  oppose  what  is  entirely  unexpected;  (Quint.  V,  13,  3),  Some 
orators,  however,  neglect  all  objections,  for  instance,  and  in  general  deliver 
their  premeditated  speech  as  if  they  had  no  opponent  (Quint,  V,  13,  36). 

This  idea  still  holds  good  in  modern  courts;  see  the  discussion  given  by 
Blair,  Lecture  XXVII  (Vol,  II,  235  ff.).  His  way  of  meeting  the  difficulty 
agrees  closely  with  that  of  Quintilian. 

^  XII.  6,  5, 

^^XII,  9,  i5ff. 

^■^X,  7,  12,  It  is  to  be  based  on  art,  but  through  habit  to  have  become 
mechanical.  X  7,  5-7  would  practically  imply  verbal  premeditation. 

^X,  7,  13;  cf.  II,  4,  15;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  5,  17.  Compare  Theophrastus 
III,  where  "an  effusion  of  prolix  and  unpremeditated  discourse"  is  the  defini- 
tion given  of  garrulity. 

"*X,  7,4- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         6 1 

tempore  seems  to  Quintilian  to  depend  on  no  other  faculty  of  the 
mind  than  memory.^^^ 

On  the  question  whether  those  who  are  going  to  deliver  a  speech 
should  learn  it  by  heart  word  for  word,  or  only  master  the  substance 
and  order  of  particulars,  Quintilian  believes  that  no  general  decision 
can  be  given.  He  says :  "For  my  own  part,  if  my  memory  is  suf- 
ficiently strong,  and  time  is  not  lacking,^^®  I  should  wish  not  a  single 
syllable  to  escape  me;  otherwise  it  would  be  of  no  avail  to  write. 
Such  exactness  we  should  acquire  in  childhood ;  and  the  memory 
should  be  brought  to  such  a  condition  by  exercise  that  we  may  never 
learn  to  excuse  its  failures.  To  be  prompted,  therefore,  and  to  refer 
to  one's  writing,  is  harmful,  because  it  grants  indulgence  to  careless- 
ness; and  a  speaker  will  not  feel  that  he  retains  with  sufficient  se- 
curity that  which  he  is  in  no  fear  of  losing.^^^  As  a  result  of  this 
come  interruptions  in  the  course  of  our  speech,  and  a  method  of 
delivery  halting  and  irregular,  for  the  speaker,  since  he  appears 
like  one  who  has  learned  a  lesson,  destroys  the  'whole  grace  of  what 
he  had  written  with  grace'  by  making  it  clear  that  he  did  write  it. 
A  good  memory,  however,  gains  us  credit  even  for  quickness  of  wit, 
because  we  seem,  not  to  have  brought  from  home  what  we  say,  but 
to  have  conceived  it  on  the  instant;  and  this  opinion  is  of  great 
service  both  to  the  orator  and  his  cause,  for  a  judge  admires  more 
and  distrusts  less  that  which  he  regards  as  not  having  been  precon- 
certed to  mislead  him.  We  should  therefore  consider  it  as  one  of 
the  very  best  devices  in  pleading  to  deliver  some  parts  of  our  speech 
which  we  have  extremely  well  connected,  as  if  they  had  not  been 
connected  at  all,  and  to  seem,  at  times,  like  people  thinking  and 
doubting,  seeking  what  we  have  in  reality  brought  with  us." 

'Tt  is  foppish,"  says  Quintilian  elsewhere,^^^  "for  the  orator  to 
be  prompted  or  to  read,  as  if  he  were  forgetful;  for  by  all  such 
practices  the  force  of  eloquence  is  relaxed  and  the  ardor  cooled, 
while  the  judge  will  think  that  too  little  respect  is  paid  him." 

It  was  Quintilian's  purpose  to  train  an  orator  who  would  not 

^°*XI,  2,  2;  3;  see  Blair's  remarks  on  memorizing  a  sermon,  Lecture 
XXIX,  (Vol.  II,  320) ;  Quint.  XI,  2,  44-5. 

^"  The  speech  may  be  learned  in  parts :  XI,  2,  27. 

«- XI,  2,46-47. 

"'^XI,3,i32. 


62  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

depend  either  wholly  on  premeditation  ^^^  or  entirely  on  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  moment.^^*'  He  should  be  one  whose  extemporary 
efforts  have  the  finish  and  accuracy  of  a  prepared  speech,  and  the 
prepared  portions  of  whose  oration  have  the  appearance  of  being 
poured  forth  extemporaneously.  The  speech  should  be  an  har- 
monius  whole:  ''nam  sicut  cithara  ita  oratio  perfecta  non  est,  nisi 
ab  imo  ad  summum  omnibus  nervis  consentiat."^^^ 

^  The  orator  must  be  one  to  whom  memory  is  not  wanting  for  retaining 
what  he  has  written,  or  ready  facility  in  uttering  what  he  has  to  speak  extem- 
pore (XI,  3,  12). 

^®°  Cf .  Quint.  X,  6,  5  ff. :  "but  if  by  chance  while  we  are  speaking,  some 
glowing  thought,  born  at  the  moment,  should  flash  upon  our  minds,  certainly 
we  ought  not  to  adhere  too  superstitiously  to  that  which  we  have  meditated. 
For  what  we  have  pondered  is  not  to  be  so  precisely  fixed  that  no  room  is 
to  be  allowed  for  the  happy  thought  of  the  moment,  since  often,  even  in  our 
written  compositions,  those  thoughts  are  inserted  which  arise  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment;  and  so  the  whole  of  this  sort  of  exercise  (premeditation: 
cogitatio)  must  be  arranged  in  such  a  manner  that  we  may  be  able  easily  to 
depart  from  that  which  we  have  meditated  and  easily  to  return  to  it.  For 
just  as  it  is  of  the  very  greatest  importance  to  bring  from  home  (afferre)  a 
prepared  and  definite  supply  of  language,  so  to  reject  the  gifts  of  the  moment 
is  the  very  greatest  folly.  Let  our  premeditation,  therefore,  have  this  end  in 
view,  that  fortune,  while  she  cannot  disappoint  us,  may  yet  have  it  in  her 
power  to  aid  us." 

Quintilian  would  prefer  the  rashness  of  purely  extemporary  speech  to 
that  preparation  which  is  unable  to  depart  from  what  it  has  before  con- 
sidered (X,  6,  6). 

The  word  afferre,  as  in  the  above  passage  (see  also  Quint.  X,  7,  30),  is 
often  used  of  speeches  prepared  beforehand  as  opposed  to  those  delivered 
extempore;  cf.  Cicero,  Orator,  XXVI,  89;  quaesita  nee  ex  tempore  ficta  sed 
domo  allata;  Phil.  II,  42;  Sen.  Controv.  Ill,  praef.  4:  Vir  (Cassius  Severus) 
enim  praesentis  animi  et  maioris  ingenii  quam  studii  magis  placebat  in  iis 
quae  inveniebat  quam  in  iis  quae  attulerat;  also  X,  2,  6;  compare  Tac.  Dial. 
c.  6,  22:  sive  accuratam  meditatamque  profert  orationem 

One  of  these  "glowing  thoughts"  or  "happy  inspirations"  occurred  to 
Cicero  on  one  occasion  {ad  Att.  I,  16,  9)'.  It  either  occurred  to  him  before  he 
made  the  speech,  or  was  reduced  to  writing  by  him  later,  because  he  clearly 
had  a  copy  by  him  when  he  wrote  to  Atticus.  After  quoting  "the  happy  in- 
spiration" he  says  "I  have  copied  almost  a  whole  speech  into  a  letter"  (paene 
orationem  in  epistulam  inclusi). 

^*  II,  8,  15 ;  cf .  Horace,  A.  P.  23 :  Denique  sit  quidvis  simplex  dumtaxat 
et  unum.  Perhaps  the  idea  goes  back  ultimately  to  the  twov  of  Plato's 
Phaedrus,  264C;  cf.  Tac.  Dial.  c.  21,  33;  Isocr.  XIII,  13.  The  "patching" 
(cf.  p.  zz,  n.  126)  in  an  orator's  speech  will  be  visible  only  if  he  has  not  the 
"facilitas"  (cf.  p.  65,  n.  276). 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         63 

The  faculty  of  extemporaneous  speech  was,  in  Quintilian's  mind, 
one  which  could  be  acquired  by  proper  attention  to  theory  and 
study. ^^^  The  orator  must  have  a  settled  method  of  speaking.  He 
must  know  the  parts  of  causes,  the  proper  order  of  questions,  and 
the  order  of  particulars  in  each  department.  Thus  he  will  adhere 
with  greatest  ease  to  the  chain  of  facts  in  the  narration.^^^  He  will 
know  what  he  wants  in  each  portion  of  a  speech,  and  will  "not  look 
about  him  like  one  at  a  loss."  Such  orators  will  have  a  certain 
range  and  limit  which  cannot  exist  without  proper  division.  These 
qualifications,  he  says,  depend  on  art,  the  rest  is  due  to  study :  ^®* 
"multo  ac  fideli  stilo  -^^  sic  formetur  oratio,  ut  scriptorum  colorem 
etiam  quae  subito  effusa  sint  reddant;  ut  cum  multa  scripserimus, 
etiam  multa  dicamus.  Nam  consuetudo  et  exercitatio  ^^^  f  aciUtatem 
maxume  parit ;  quae  si  paululum  intermissa  f  uerit  non  velocitas  ^^^ 
ilia  modo  tardatur  sed  ipsum  os  quoque  concurrit." 

Although  the  power  to  speak  extempore  can  be  acquired,  it  will 
not,  however,  come  to  the  orator  as  soon  as  he  begins  to  speak,  and 

it  cannot  be  retained  without  practice: "facilitatem 

extemporalem  a  parvis  initiis  ^^®  paulatim  perducemus 

^«^X,  7,  5  ff.  Cf.  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  33,  i. 
^^X,  7,  6. 

^''Stilus,  in  the  sense  of  composition:  II,  2,  11 ;  4,  13;  X,  i,  2;  3,  5,  7,  4; 
Tac.  Dial.  c.  39,  9.  II,  2,  11,  implies  a  written  composition  recited  by  the  pupil 
to  his  fellow  students.    It  was  no  doubt  memorized. 

^*^The  practice  of  speaking  constantly  in  connection  with  writing. 

^*"  velocitas.  This  is  the  "fluency,"  evgoia,  of  the  Greeks ;  cf .  Plato,  Phaedr. 
238  C;  Pollux,  IV,  20,  and  22:  VI,  147  and  148;  Suidas  s.  v.  evqou?;  Dionys. 
Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  23.  Plutarch  {Alex.  c.  53)  uses  the  phrase  eugofiaai 
jtQog  vKo^zGvv  of  an  orator  who  was  clever  at  making  speeches  on  a  given 
theme  at  a  moment's  notice.  Among  the  later  Sophists  evQOia  became  almost 
a  technical  term  for  the  continual  flow  of  extemporary  speech:  cf.  Philost. 
Vit,,  Soph.  I,  8,  6;  I,  18,  4;  II,  9,  5;  H,  10,  2;  II,  15,  i ;  II,  25,  6;  II,  27,  10; 
II,  2>2„  2;  Synes.  Dion.  p.  40,  and  elsewhere.  Cf.  Hobein :  De  Maximo  Tyrio 
Quaestiones  Philologae  Selectae  (Gottingen,  1895)  ;  16  ff. 

^"^Just  what  the  "parva  initia"  were  is  not  stated.  From  the  general  tone 
of  Quintilian's  treatment  of  the  subject,  one  would  suppose  that  the  orator 
prepared  parts  of  his  speech  and  then  followed  the  method  advocated  by 
Sarcey  (pp.  156-7,  cf.  p.  31,  n.  121),  extemporized  badly  until  he  had  acquired 
some  skill.  Crassus  {de  Or.  I,  33,  150  ff. ;  I,  60,  257)  recommends  extemporary 
exercises  on  stated  cases:  subitae-ad  propositas  causas  exercitationes. 


64  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

ad  summam,  quae  neque  perfici  neque  contineri  nisi  usu  potest."^^^ 
It  ought,  however,  to  be  attained  to  such  a  degree  that  premedi- 
tation   (cogitatio)^^^  though   safer,   may  not  be  more  effective.^^^ 

^X,  7,  18.  Quintilian's  orator  must  exercise  himself  by  speaking  daily 
in  the  hearing  of  several  persons,  or  alone,  or  failing  either,  must  silently 
meditate  by  himself. 

Against  the  idea  that  extemporary  speaking  needs  no  training,  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  says :  "Not  an  eminent  orator  has  lived  but  is  an  example  of 

industry If  any  one  would  sing,  he  attends  a  master  and  is 

drilled  in  the  very  elementary  principles;  and  it  is  only  after  the  most  la- 
borious process  that  he  dares  to  exercise  his  voice  in  public 

But  the  extempore  speaker,  who  is  to  invent,  as  well  as  utter,  to  carry  on  an 
operation  of  the  mind,  as  well  as  to  produce  sound,  enters  upon  the  work 
without  preparatory  discipline,  and  then  wonders  that  he  fails!"  (Hardwicke, 

p.  73). 

On  the  necessity  for  an  orator  to  carry  on  all  these  operations  at  once, 
see  Quintilian,  I,  12,  4;  X,  7,  9;  XI,  2,  3. 

^°  Cogitatio  here  seems  to  stand  for  the  verbally  prepared  speech  as 
contrasted  with  the  extemporary  oration,  and  implies  that  Quintilian  expected 
that  the  majority  of  speeches  would  be  prepared;  cf.  n.  277. 

^^  X,  7,  19.  Quintilian  continues :  "Since  many  have  had  such  command 
of  language,  not  only  in  prose,  but  even  in  verse,  as  Antipater  of  Sidon 
(Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  50,  194)  and  Licinius  Archias  (Cicero,  pro  Arch. 
c.  VIII),  for  we  must  rely  on  Cicero's  authority  with  regard  to 
them  both;  not  but  that  even  in  our  own  times  some  have  exercised 
this  talent  and  still  exercise  it."  Cicero  {pro  Arch.  VIII)  says  of  Archias: 
"quotiens  ego  hunc  vidi,  cum  litteram  scripsisset  nullam,  magnum  numerum 
optimorum  versuum  de  eis  ipsis  rebus,  quae  tum  agerentur,  dicer e  ex  tempore! 
quotiens  revocatum  eandem  rem  dicere  commutatis  verbis  atque  sententiis !" 
Mr.  Kelsey  in  a  note  on  this  passage  says :  "All  the  writings  of  Archias  have 
perished  with  the  exception  of  eighteen  epigrams  (cf.  Reinach,  de  Archia, 
p.  28)  which  are  assigned  to  him  with  a  strong  probability  that  they  are 
genuine.  To  judge  from  these,  his  success  as  an  extemporizer  consisted 
chiefly  in  the  ability  to  patch  together,  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  phrases, 
lines  and  passages  from  the  older  poets  which  had  previously  been  committed 

to   memory By   having   a    memory    stored    with    original    and 

selected  passages  appropriate  to  many  subjects  and  occasions,  a  good  ear  for 
meters,  and  constant  practice,  a  professional  extemporizer  was  able  to  perform 
feats  that  appeared  little  short  of  the  marvellous,  and  that,  too,  without  being 
a  great  poet."  Such  may  have  been  the  case  also  with  Antipater  of  Sidon 
whose  epigrams  may  be  found  in  the  Palatine   Anthology. 

Poetic  extemporization,  and  particularly  the  extemporization  of  epigrams, 
is  said  to  go  back  as  far  as  Simonides  (Athenaeus,  III,  99).  According  to 
Plutarch  (IIeqI  tov  fXT)  XQOiv  Efx^exa  vuv  tt|V  IlvOiav  25)  there  were  several 
extempore  poets  stationed  about  the  Tripos,  who  received  the  words  of  the 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         65 

There  are  even  occasions  on  which  extemporizations  are  more  ef- 
fective than  premeditated  speeches:  "si  calor  ac  spiritus  tulit,  fre- 
quenter accidit,  ut  successum  extemporakm  consequi  cura  ^^^  non 
possit.  Dum  tunc  affuisse,  cum  id  evenisset,  veteres  oratores,  ut 
Cicero  dicit,  aiebant.  Sed  ratio  manifesta  est.  Nam  bene  concepti 
affectus  et  recentes  rerum  imagines  continuo  impetu  feruntur,  qua 
nonnunquam  mora  stili  refrigescunt  et  dilatae  non  revertuntur."273 

If  he  is  without  this  enthusiasm,  an  orator,  if  called  upon  to 
speak  on  the  sudden,  may  gain  time  in  various  ways :  ^^*  in  the 
first  place,  he  may  relax  something  of  his  care  about  words ;  a  slower 
method  of  pronunciation,  and  a  mode  of  speaking  with  suspense  and 
doubt,  as  it  were,  gives  time  for  consideration ;  yet  the  orator  must 
manage  so  that  he  may  seem  to  deliberate  and  not  to  hesitate. 

This  talent,^''"'^  however,  must  be  kept  up  with  no  less  practice 
than  it  is  acquired.  The  pen,  through  lack  of  use,  loses  little  of  its 
readiness ;  while  promptitude  in  speaking,  which  depends  on  activity 
of  thought,  can  be  retained  only  by  exercise.^''®     The  orator  must 

oracle  and  dressed  them  up  in  extempore  (Ix  xov  jiQoaxuxovTog)  verses.  He 
later  complains  of  those  who  lessen  the  value  of  poetry  by  composing  vain 
predictions  in  verse  either  extempore  (ol  \i£\  avxo'&Ev)  or  by  lot  from  little 
books  which  they  carry.  "From  a  meal  without  wine"  says  Athenaeus  "there 
arise  neither  jokes  nor  extempore  poems  (II,  9)".  Horace  (Sat.  I,  4,  10) 
says  that  Lucilius  would  extemporize  a  couple  of  hundred  lines  at  a  stretch. 
Suetonius  (de  Gram,  et  Rhet.  23)'  says  Palaemon  had  the  gift  of  making 
extempore  verses.  Cicero,  too,  could  write  verses  rapidly  (Plut.  Cic.  c.  XL, 
881),  Statins'  "Silvae"  are  said  to  have  been  practically  extemporaneous 
(see  the  dedication  to  Stella)  as  the  name  shows  (cf.  the  use  of  "silvam"  in 
Quint.  X,  3,  17),  and  Vergil's  librarian  is  said  to  have  extemporized  a  missing 
two  lines  which  were  incorporated  in  the  manuscript.  Athenaeus  (XIV,  16, 
622B)  mentions  improvisator!.  He  says  of  certain  men:  ay^ib-xxv  EJtegaivov 
'oriaEig  which  clearly  means  avxoaxefiidtov,  although  Liddell  and  Scott  be- 
lieve it  means  "acted  as  buffoons." 

"^  Ut possit.    "Ut    successus    orationis    extemporalis   vinca't 

successum  curae  et  meditationis"   (Spalding). 

Cura  here  means  study;  that  of  writing  and  premeditation;  literary 
composition.  The  Greek  equivalent  in  some  senses  is  ZKi\x.il.Evo..  Cf.  n.  285, 
p.  68. 

"^X,  7,  14. 
"'^X,  7,  22. 

"^X,  7,24. 

'"^  Reading,  writing,  and  speaking  are  together  to  produce  a  certain 
efficient  readiness    (firma  facilitas)    which  the  Greeks  call  e^ig   (X,   i,   1-3; 


66  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

Speak  before  others  daily,^"  or  failing  that,  must  speak  (dicere) 
by  himself.^^^ 

Even  the  orator  who  has  acquired  the  power  of  speaking  on  the 
sudden,  should  take  whatever  time  is  possible  for  consideration. ^^^ 

The  good  orator,  in  Quintilian's  opinion,  would  prepare  his 
speech  as  far  as  he  could  foresee  the  trend  of  the  case,^^^  and  meet 
any  unforeseen  attacks  with  extemporaneous  replies. 

Tacitus,  if  we  are  able  to  regard  the  ''Dialogus"  as  a  work  of 

compare  X,  7,  8;  11-14;  18;  XII,  9,  21;  Polybius,  X,  47,  11).  Later  e|i?  be- 
came almost  technical  for  the  acquired  habit  of  extemporary  speech  (Pliny, 
Ep.  II,  3,  4),  especially  in  the  New  Sophistic. 

^'"  Cogitatio,  premeditation,  according  to  Quintilian  (X,  6,  i  ff.)  is  some- 
thing between  writing  and  extemporary  speech.  It  may  fit  together  the  whole 
texture  of  a  speech,  so  that  nothing  is  wanting  but  to  write  it  down,  and  fixes 
it  in  the  memory  even  more  firmly  than  writing.  This  power  of  thought, 
however,  is  not  to  be  easily  acquired. 

Cogitatio  is  elsewhere  contrasted  with  what  the  orator  has  written  and 
learned  by  heart  (X,  6,  4),  although  in  some  cases  premeditation  accomplishes 
memorization,  cf.  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  88;  Pliny,  A^.  H.  VII,  24;  also  compare 
Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  4,  14;  II,  30,  131 ;  35,  149. 

"^Cf.  Plut.  Cat.  Min.  c.  IV:  "He  (Cato)  did  not  practice  his  exercises 
in  company  with  others,  nor  did  anyone  hear  him  when  he  was  declaiming." 
Compare  Seneca,  Contr.  IV,  praef.  2,  of  Asinius  Pollio. 

^^*  X,  7,  20.  He  will  give  to  every  cause  such  preparation  as  he  can  (XII, 
9,  15)1;  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  24;  cf.  Blair,  Vol.  II,  p.  269. 

^"^  Quintilian  (XII,  3,  2-5)  in  arguing  that  a  knowledge  of  civil  law  is 
necessary  to  an  orator,  says  that  the  speaker  may  be  able  to  get  it  from  others, 
but  "when  he  shall  bring  before  the  judge  what  he  has  taught  himself  and 
arranged  at  home,  and  which  he  has  learned  by  heart  like  other  parts  of  the 
cause"  (praecepta  et  composita  et  sicut  cetera  quae  in  causa  sunt,  in  discendo 
cognita),  he  will  fare  ill  unless  there  be  one  skilled  in  the  law  near  to  prompt 
him. 

These  learned  men  of  the  law,  who  were  to  aid  the  speaker  were  called 
pragmatici  or  iuris  interpretes  (Quint.  XII,  3,  3-4;  III,  6,  59;  cf.  Juv.  VII, 
123;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  45,  198;  59,  253;  Plut.  Ger.  Reip.  19,  5.  "There  were 
among  the  Romans  a  set  of  men  called  Pragmatici,  whose  office  it  was  to  give 
the  Orator  all  the  law  knowledge  which  the  cause  he  was  to  plead  required, 
and  which  he  put  into  popular  form,  and  dressed  up  with  those  colors  of 
eloquence  that  were  best  fitted  for  influencing  the  judge  before  whom  he 
spoke"  (Blair,  Lecture  XXVIII,  Vol.  II,  279). 

Libanius  (I,  185,  17)  says:  "In  former  days  the  expert  in  law  stood  in 
court  with  his  roll  in  his  hand,  looking  at  the  speaker,  and  waiting  for  the 
order  to  read."  Cf.  Mitteis,  Reichsrecht  u.  Volksrecht,  p.  189  ff. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         6/ 

his,^^^    accorded   enthusiastic   praise   to   extemporaneous    speaking. 
Aper,  in  his  ''defense  of  oratory,"  ^^^  after  speaking  of  the  honors 

*^  The  manuscripts,  with  the  exception  of  the  codex  Vaticanus  2964  which 
contains  only  a  fragment  of  the  work,  unanimously  attribute  the  Dialogus 
to  Tacitus.  In  the  codex  Vindobonensis  351  there  is  found  "Quinctil."  added 
to  the  title,  but  both  hand-writing  and  ink  are  different  from  those  of  the 
rest  of  the  treatise.  Lipsius  believed  that  the  word  was  inserted  by  Johannes 
Sambucus  (1531-1584)  to  whom  this  manuscript  belonged  (cf.  Gudeman, 
Introd.  p.  XIV,  n.  4).  The  editio  princeps  and  an  edition  of  1475  were  printed 
directly  from  the  manuscripts  and  also  give  Tacitus  as  the  author,  Gudeman 
(p.  XXII)  points  out  that,  since  the  manuscript  history  of  the  Dialogus  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  Germania,  every  examination  must  start  out  with 
the  presumption  that  the  one  is  as  genuine  a  work  of  Tacitus  as  the  other. 

The  first  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of  the  treatise  was  Beatus  Rhenanus 
in  a  note  to  his  edition  of  Tacitus  published  at  Basle  in  15 19.  No  attention 
was  paid  to  'the  matter,  however,  until  the  edition  of  Lipsius  in  1574.  This 
critic  denied  that  the  Dialogus  was  the  work  of  Tacitus,  and  attributed  it 
to  Quintilian.  Later,  however,  he  abandoned  this  position  because  of  chrono- 
logical difficulties.  Nevertheless,  the  theory  that  Quintilian  is  the  author  of 
the  treatise  has  been  held  by  many.  The  arguments  for  it  are  based  on  the 
similarity  of  style  between  the  Institutio  Oratoria  and  the  Dialogus.  This 
theory  has  been  disposed  of  by  Spaulding  in  his  edition  (1803)  of  Quintilian 
(Vol.  II,  p.  424  ff.)- 

Nast,  in  his  German  translation  of  the  Dialogus  (1778),  brings  forward 
the  younger  Pliny  as  the  author,  and  this  view,  too,  had  its  followers.  The 
arguments  for  this  theory,  based  on  similarities  in  diction  and  thought  be- 
tween the  Dialogus  and  the  works  of  Pliny,  have  been  refuted  by  Eckstein 
(Proleg.  in  Tac.  qui  vulgo  fertur  dial,  de  Orat.,  Halle,  1835).  Suetonius, 
Messalla,  and  Maternus  have  also  been  mentioned  as  possible  authors  of  the 
treatise  (Eckstein,  pp.  43-46).  The  burden  of  proof  seems  to  rest  on  those 
who  deny  the  accepted  authorship. 

There  is  an  excellent  and  full  discussion  in  Gudeman's  edition  (pp.  xiv- 
Ixiii)   which  contains  all  the  facts  given  above,  and  many  additional  ones. 
Those  who  desire  to  pursue  the  subject  further  may  consult  Eckstein,  F.  A. 
Proleg.  in  Tac.  qui  vulgo  fertur  dial,  de  orat.  (Halle,  1835) ;  Eruenwald,  E. 
Quae  ratio  intercedere  videatur  inter  Quint,  et  Tac.  Dial.    (Berlin,   1883) 
Dupre  A. :  Dial,  de  orat.  nee  Quint,  nee  cuivis  alii  sed  Tacito  adiudicandum 
esse  (Calais  1849)  ;  Peck,  T. :  On  the  authorship  of  the  Dial.  {Transact,  Am. 
Phil.  Ass.  Vol.  X,  1879)  ;  Widal,  A.:  In  Tac.  Dial,  de  orat.  disputatio  (Paris, 
1851) ;  Jansen,  I.  H.  A.  G. :  de  Tac.  dial,  auctore  (Gron.,  1878)  ;  Wackermann, 
G.  O.  F.,  Dial.  Qui  de  orat.  inscr.  quo  iure  Tac.  abiudicatur  (Rostock,  1874)'; 
Vogel,  T. :  De  dial,  qui  Tac.  nomine  fertur  sermone  iudicium.  Fleck  Jahrh. 
Sup  pi.  Vol.  II,  249-282. 

^^^  Dial.  cc.  5-10.  The  Dialogus  purports  to  represent  the  faithful  repro- 
duction from  memory  of  a  debate  on  the  decline  of  eloquence  (cc.  1-2). 


68  EXTEMPORAR':     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

paid  to  eloquence,  adds  that  there  belong  to  it  other  joys  of  which 
the  orator  alone  can  be  sensible.  If  he  comes  to  his  task  armed  with 
an  elaborate  and  well-prepared  speech  (accuratam  meditatamque 
orationem)  "est  quoddam  sicut  ipsius  dictionis,  ita  gaudii  pondus 
et  constantia."-^^  If  he  enters  upon  a  new  and  perhaps  unexpected 
debate,  even  the  nervous  flutter  of  spirit  ^^*  which  he  felt  when  he 
arose,  increases  the  pleasure  of  his  success ;  but  the  greatest  pleasure 
comes  when  he  boldly  hazards  an  extemporary  speech :  "sive  novam 
et  recentem  curam  ^^^  non  sine  aliqua  trepidatione  animi  attulerit, 
ipsa  sollicitudo  commendat  eventum  et  lenocinatur  voluptati:  sed 
extemporalis  audaciae  atque  ipsius  temeritatis  vel  praecipua  iucund- 
itas  est;  nam  in  ingenio  quoque,  sicut  in  agro,  quamquam  quae 
(alia)  diu  seriuntur  atque  elaborantur  grata,  gratiora  tamen  quae 
sua  sponte  nascuntur." 

Later,  however,  Tacitus'  enthusiasm  seems  to  have  been  con- 
siderably modified.  He  places  a  greater  value  upon  the  enduring 
fame  which  comes  from  thought  and  care ;  ^^®  the  fame  that  rests 
on  such  a  basis  will  not  end  even  with  the  life  of  the  man  himself. 

^^  Dial  c.  6,  20.  Cf.  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  6o,  257. 

^Quintilian  believes  that  such  anxiety  should  be  assumed  if  it  is  not 
really  felt  (XII,  5,  4).  Tacitus  himself  realized  the  possible  value  of  this 
"trepidatio :"  Hist.  I,  69.  Cf.  also  Cicero,  de  Or,  I,  26,  1 19-120;  I,  27,  123  ff. 
where  two  causes  are  given;  Pliny,  Ep.  V,  17,  3;  VII,  17,  13;  25,  i;  Sarcey, 
p.  300;  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Orators,  p.  141  ff. 

^*"*novam  et  recentem  curam"  clearly  means  a  speech  which  the  orator 
has  had  a  little  time  to  prepare,  but  has  not  been  able  to  bring  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  "accuratam  meditatamque  orationem." 

Tacitus  uses  "cura"  seemingly  for  formal  literary  composition  in  general. 
In  Dial.  c.  3,  13,  it  means  the  tragedy,  Cato.  Here  it  is  the  "speech."  Later 
(c.  2^,  20)  he  uses  "curae"  for  school-exercises.  Cf.  also  Ann.  Ill,  24,  and 
IV,  II,  where  the  word  is  used  of  Tacitus'  own  writings;  also  Dial.  c.  16,  3; 
Agric.  10,  where  the  meaning  is  practically  "research." 

Tacitus  seems  to  be  the  only  prose  writer  who  so  uses  the  word,  though 
it  occurs  frequently  in  poetry:  Ovid,  Ex  Panto,  II,  4,  16;  IV,  16,  39;  Martial, 
I>  107,  5,  and  elsewhere. 

^^  Ann.  IV,  61,  5.  So  much  value  did  Tacitus  give  to  care  that  here  the 
contrast  is  not  between  extemporary  and  prepared  speeches,  but  between 
speeches  prepared  carelessly  and  those  prepared  properly. 

On  Haterius,  here  used  as  an  example,  see  Hieron,  on  Eus.  Chr.  a.  Abr. 
2040;  Sen.  Contr.  IV,  praef.  6-11 ;  Ep.  40,  10.  Specimens  of  his  declamations 
are  frequently  given  by  Seneca  the  Elder.  Cf.  also  Tac.  Ann.  II,  ZZ\  Suet. 
Tih.  27',  29;  and  in  general  Cinia,  A.:  de  Q.  Materia  Oratore  {Saggj  di  studj 
lat.,  Flor.  1889,  105). 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THEORY  OF  RHETORIC         69 

Outside  of  these  treatises  there  are  but  a  few  scattered  references 
to  the  theory  of  eloquence  among  the  Romans.  Oratory  was  dis- 
pleasing to  the  later  Emperors,  and  therefore  the  greater  part  of  it 
is  mere  declamation  in  the  schools  of  the  rhetoricians.  The  referen- 
ces in  Seneca,  Petronius,  Pliny  the  Younger,  and  Pronto,  have  been 
employed  in  different  parts  of  this  paper. 


11.  THE  PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  THE 
PRACTICE  OF  THE  ORATORS 

Even  in  the  heroic  age,  long  before  men  thought  of  a  theory  of 
rhetoric,  or  the  written  word  was  known,  there  were  brilHant  ex- 
amples of  the  practice  of  oratory.  Even  before  the  time  of  the 
great  struggle  of  the  Greeks  against  Troy,  Menestheus  is  said  to 
have'  used  his  skill  as  a  speaker  to  exasperate  the  people  against 
Theseus.^  In  the  time  of  which  Homer  tells,  power  to  fight  and 
ability  to  speak  were  rated  equally  high,  each  having  an  equal  share 
in  making  the  hero,  and  so  Achilles,  when  he  set  out  to  join  the 
Grecian  force,  "being  as  yet  unskilled  in  war  and  public  speaking, 
wherein  men  win  renown,"  took  Phoenix  with  him,  "who  should 
teach  him  all  these  things,  to  be  both  a  speaker  of  words  and  a  doer 
of  deeds."  ^  The  eloquence  of  Nestor  was  proverbial  throughout 
antiquity,^  his  fame  as  an  orator  being  based  on  the  well-known 
line  of  the  Iliad:  toG  y.(x\  cztco  yXtjicaT^q  iiiXiio?  ^'kuv.idi^  'pisv  auBY).* 
Menelaus,  too,  was  an  able  speaker,^  but  according  to  Quintilian,  the 
highest  power  of  eloquence  was  reached  in  Ulysses,  %(x\  exea  vtcpaSsj- 
(Jiv  eotxoTa  ^s'lAspf^atv,^  and  the  admirable  qualities  shown  in  Ulys- 

*  Plut.  Thes.  cc.  32-33;  Pausanias,  I,  17,  6.  The  Greeks  loved  to  trace  the 
beginnings  of  rhetoric  back  to  history. 

^  Iliad,  IX,  440  ff.  See  Quintilian  II,  3,  12;  17,  8;  Phoenix  praeceptor 
Achillis;  Plut.  de  Educat.  Puer.  c.  7;  Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  15,  57.  Compare 
Odyssey  VIII,  171  flf. :  if  the  gods  have  "crowned  a  man's  words  with  beauty," 
the  people  gaze  on  him  as  on  a  god ;  cf ,  Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  14,  53.  Gladstone 
(Homer,  p.  118)  calls  Achilles'  speech  in  the  Ninth  Book  of  the  Iliad  the  most 
elaborate  of  all  the  orations  found  in  the  poem. 

"Theognis,  714;  Cicero,  de  Sen.  10,  31;  Brut.  X,  40;  Auct.  ad  Heren.  IV, 
33,  44;  Seneca,  Ep.  40,  2;  Pliny,  Ep.  IV,  3,  3;  Lucian,  Imag.  13;  Tac.  Dial.  16, 
19;  Laus  Pis.  64;  Tertull.  de  Anim.  31;  Auson.  Prof.  16,  22,  22;  see  Otto, 
Die  Sprichw.  etc.  bei  d.  Roni:  p.  242. 

The  Trojan  elders,  too,  are  able  speakers;  cf.  Iliad,  III,  150;  compare 
Vergil,  Aen.  I,  148;  Quint.  XII,  i,  27. 

*  Iliad,  I,  249;  cf.  also  Hesiod's  description  of  those  gifted  by  the  Muses 
with  eloquence :    Theog.  81  ff. 

^  Iliad,  III,  213  ff.  On  this  characterization  of  Menelaus  as  fitting  a 
Spartan  see  Croiset,  IV,  18. 

Uliad,  III,  221  ff.  See  Ovid,  Met.  XIII,  92;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  22;  Her- 
mogenes     (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  390  Sp.).  Emerson  in  his  Essay  on  Eloquence  (So- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    7 1 

ses'  Speech,  he  says,  were  such  as  Eupolis  ^  admired  in  Pericles, 
and  which  Aristophanes  ^  compared  to  thunder  and  lightning.* 
The  example  of  Ulysses  who  stands  ''with  his  eyes  fixed  on  the 
ground  and  his  scepter  motionless"  before  he  begins  to  utter  his 
speech,  is  the  one  which  the  Roman  orator  is  to  follow;  he,  like 
Ulysses,  is  to  stand  silent  a  moment  and  consider  what  he  is  to  say, 
even  after  leave  to  speak  has  been  granted  him  by  the  praetor.^^  In 
Quintilian's  opinion,  practically  all  oratorical  excellence  is  to  be 

found  in  Homer: omnibus  eloquentiae  partibus  ex- 

emplum  et  ortum  (Homerus)  dedit nam  ut  de  laudi- 

bus,  exhortationibus,  consolationibus  taceam;  nonne  vel  nonus  liber, 
quo  missa  ad  Achillem  legatio  continetur,  vel  in  primo  inter  duces 
ilia  contentio  vel  dictae  in  secundo  sententiae  omnes  litium  ac  con- 
siliorum  explicant  artes  ?  ^^  Cicero  calls  Nestor  and  Ulysses  the  old- 

ciety  and  Solitude  p.  72)  says :  "For  what  is  the  Odyssey  but  a  history  of  the 
orator,  in  the  largest  style,  carried  through  a  series  of  adventures  furnishing 
brilliant  opportunities  to  his  talent?"  Cf.  also  pp.  73-4  of  the  same  Essay. 

'Afi^ioi  (Meineke,  II,  458-9;  Kock,  I,  281). 

*  Acharnians,  530. 

'  Quintilian,  XII,  10,  64 :  Nam  et  Homerus  brevem  quidem  cum  iucundi- 
tate  et  propriam,  id  enim  est  non  deerrare  verbis,  et  carentem  supervacuis 
eloquentiam  Menelao  dedit,  quae  sunt  virtutes  generis  illius  primi ;  et  ex  ore 
Nestoris  dixit  dulciorem  melle  profluere  sermonem,  qua  certe  delectatione 
nihil  fingi  maius  potest ;  sed  summam  aggressus  in  Ulixe  f acundiam  et  magni- 
tudinem  illi  iunxit;  cui  orationem  nivibus  hibernis  et  copia  verborum  et 
impetu  parem  tribuit.  Cum  hoc  igitur  nemo  mortalium  contendet;  hunc  ut 
deum  homines  intuebuntur.  Hanc  vim  et  celeritatem  in  Pericle  miratur 
Eupolis,  hanc  fulminibus  Aristophanes  comparat,  haec  est  vere  dicendi  facul- 
tas. 

^"Quintilian,  XI,  3,  157-8.  I  suppose  the  usual  interpretation  of  the  word 
cogitatio  would  make  the  passage  mean  no  more  than  that  the  orator  is  to 
stand  a  moment  and  collect  his  thoughts  before  he  speaks,  and  yet  the  same 
word  is  used  in  another  passage  (X,  7,  19)  in  direct  contrast  with  extem- 
porary speech  and  where  we  are  obliged  to  make  it  mean  the  premeditated, 
which  may  in  some  cases  be  equivalent  to  the  memorized,  speech.  That 
Quintilian  may  have  had  the  latter  idea  in  mind  is,  therefore,  possible. 

"X,  I,  46;  cf.  also  II,  17,  8: apud  Homerum  et  praecept- 

orem  Phoenicem  cum  agendi  turn  etiam  loquendi  (II.  IX.  432)  et  oratores 
plures  et  omne  in  tribus  ducibus  orationis  genus  et  certamina  quoque 
proposita  eloquentiae  inter  iuvenes  invenimus  (//.  XV,  284),  quin  in  caelatura 
clipei  Achillis  et  lites  sunt  et  actores  (//.  XVIII,  497-508).  Cf.  Hermog.  II, 
10  {Rhet  Gr.  Ill,  375,  Walz;  II,  405,  21  Sp.) ;  Xen.  Symp.  IV,  6. 


72  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

est  representatives  of  Greek  eloquence,  and  adds  that  Homer  would 
not  have  bestowed  such  praise  upon  them  if  oratory  had  not  been 
held  in  honor  even  in  those  days,  nor  could  the  poet  himself  have  ex- 
hibited such  fine  specimens  of  eloquence  as  we  actually  find  in  his 
poems  otherwise.^^ 

The  "three  leaders"  are  probably  Nestor,  representing  the  grand  style.. 
Menelaus,  the  simple,  and  Ulysses,  the  middle.  Cf.  Aulus  Gell.  VII,  14.  Cap- 
peronier  thinks  Phoenix,  Ulysses  and  Ajax  are  meant:  the  speakers  in  the 
embassy  to  Achilles  (//.  IX).  In  Spengel,  Rhet.  Gr.  Ill,  152,  12  ff.  may  be 
found  an  elaborate  comparison  of  the  Homeric  heroes  with  Lysias,  Demos- 
thenes and  Isocrates.  See  also  Spengel,  Rhet.  Gr.  II,  63,  28  ff. ;  Art  Script. 
pp.  6,  7,  119  n. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  for  a  modern  fully  to  appreciate  the  feeling  of 
the  ancients  about  Homer.  "Boys  learned  Homer  by  heart  at  school,  priests 
quoted  him  touching  the  gods,  moralists  went  to  him  for  maxims,  statesmen 
for  arguments,  cities  for  claims  to  territory  or  alliance,  noble  houses  for  the 
title-deeds  of  their  fame."  (Jebb,  Primer.  Gr.  Lit.  p.  34.  Homer  was  re- 
ferred to  in  all  seriousness  as  authority  in  historical  appeals  (Herod.  VII, 
1 59- 1 61 ;  Arist.  Rhet.  I,  15;  Thucyd.  II,  41,  4;  cf.  I,  10,  i;  Plut.  Solon,  c.  10). 
He  was  looked  upon  as  the  embodiment  of  national  Hellenic  sentiment  (cf. 
Isocr.  IV,  159).  According  to  Plato,  (Rep.  603E)  certain  eulogists  of  Homer 
asserted  that  he  had  educated  Greece  (see  also  Plato's  Ion).  Hippias  of  EHs 
made  him  the  subject  of  "displays"  at  the  Olympic  festivals  (Plato,  Hipp. 
Min.  363 A).  The  schools  used  Homer  as  a  text-book  (Plato,  Protag.  325C; 
Xen.  Sywp.  Ill,  5;  Dion.  Chrys.  Or.  II,  p.  308;  Quintil.  I,  i,  36;  cf.  I,  i,  19, 
I,  8,  lo-ii  and  elsewhere. 

According  to  Longinus  (?)  de  Sublim.  XIII,  3-4,  Herodotus,  Stesichorus, 
Archilochus,  and  above  all,  Plato,  drew  from  the  great  Homeric  source  (com- 
pare Quint.  X,  I,  46  ff.).  The  same  author  (c.  XIV)  advises  one  who  is 
elaborating  anything  which  requires  lofty  expression  and  elevated  conception, 
to  consider,  as  the  most  severe  test  of  its  excellence,  how  Homer,  Plato, 
Demosthenes,  or  Thucydides  would  have  treated  the  same  thing  and  further- 
more how  the  writer's  productions  would  have  affected  Homer  and  Demos- 
thenes had  they  heard  them.  Horace  (A.  P.  140  ff.)  quotes  the  opening  verse 
of  the  Odyssey  as  a  model  exordium.  Lucian  (Encom.  Detnosth.)'  parallels 
Homer  with  Demosthenes,  and  he,  with  Demosthenes  is  the  author  most 
quoted  in  the  pages  of  the  rhetoricians.  Only  a  few  authors  dared  to  accuse 
Homer  and  Demosthenes  of  "nodding:"  Cicero,  Orat.  XXIX,  104;  Plutarch, 
Cicero,  c.  XXIV;  Cicero,  Brut.  IX,  35;  Quint.  X,  i,  24;  XII,  i,  22;  Horace, 
A.  P.  357. 

"Brutus,  X,  39-40:  Nee  tamen  dubito  quin  habuerit  vim  magnam  semper 
oratio.  Neque  enim  iam  Troicis  temporibus  tantum  laudis  in  dicendo  Ulixi 
tribuisset  Homerus  et  Nestori  quorum  alterum  vim  habere  voluit,  alterum 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    73 

In  the  years  between  Homeric  times,  to  which  the  Greeks  traced 
back  the  history  of  eloquence  and  rhetoric/^  and  the  actual  rise  of 
those  arts  in  democratic  Athens,  lyric  poetry,  such  as  that  of 
Callinus,  Tyrtaeus,  Archilochus,  and  Solon,  practically  fulfilled  all 
the  functions  of  the  orator. 

Callinus  of  Ephesus,  the  earliest  elegiac  poet,  gives  us  in  his 
poems  not  only  the  general's  speech,  which  occurs  first  in  Homer,^* 
but  also  that  of  the  orator  who  seeks  to  rouse  his  countrymen 
against  an  invader. 

Tyrtaeus,  whom  Pausanias  makes  a  lame  Athenian  school- 
master,^^ averted  a  revolution  in  Sparta  by  his  poem  Eimofwia,^^ 
and  his  exhortations  and  marching  songs  at  any  rate,  if  not  Tyrtaeus 
himself,  as  tradition  says,  led  the  Spartans  to  victory.^''  His  poems 
were  political  as  well  as  martial,  and  his  elegies  were  learned  by 
heart  and  sung  by  Spartan  soldiers  around  their  camp-fires. ^^ 

Archilochus,  who  was  the  first  to  wield  the  weapon  of  public 
satire,  not  only  urged  on  the  Thasians  to  war  against  the  Thracians 
of  the  mainland,  but  also  used  his  gift  of  poetry  for  political  pur- 
poses.^^ 


suavitatem,  nisi  iam  turn  esset  honos  eloquentiae ;  neque  ipse  poeta  hie  tarn 
ornatus  in  dicendo  ac  plane  orator  fuisset. 

The  fact  that  Homer  contrasts  the  two  styles  perhaps  shows  that  he  had 
given  some  thought  to  the  theory  of  the  question.  Compare  Plut.  Pal.  Praec. 
c.  5.  Quintilian  (II,  17,  8)  points  out  that  in  Homer  there  are  contests  in  elo- 
quence proposed  among  the  young  men  (//.  XV,  284),  and  that  both  law- 
suits and  pleaders  are  represented  among  the  figures  on  Achilles'  shield  (//. 
XVni,  479-508).  Cf.  Croiset,  M. :  De  Puhlicae  Eloquentiae  Principiis  apud 
Graecos  in  Homericis  Carminibus  (Paris,  1874)  ;  also  Epes  Sargent's  remarks 
on  early  Greek  oratory  (Oratory  Ancient  and  Modern,  quoted  by  Byars, 
Handbook  of  Oratory,  p.  270  fif.)- 

"  Cf .  p.  I  fif. 

"Cf.  p.  91,  n.  100. 

^^  On  the  legend  see  Busolt,  Gr.  Gesch.  p.  166 ;  compare  Plato,  Laws,  629A. 

"  Cf .  f  r.  5,  6,  7. 

"Fr,  8,  10  (with  which  compare  Theognis  699  fif.),  15,  30-33. 

"Athenaeus,  XIV,  630F.  Cretans  as  well  as  Spartans  knew  their  Tyr- 
taeus (Plato,  Laws,  629)  and  later  Lycurgus  quotes  him  in  his  indictment  of 
a  coward  {in  Leocr.  107). 

^"^Cf.  Welcker,  Archilochos  (Kl.  Schr.  i);  Hauvette,  Archiloque,  (Paris, 
1905);  Hauvette,  in  Rev.  d.  Etudes  Greques,  1901. 


74  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Solon's  poetry  is  in  the  main  the  expression  of  his  political  life 
against  those  who  criticised  his  measures. ^^  As  Tyrtaeus'  songs 
roused  the  Spartans  to  reconquer  Messenia,  so  Solon,  after  writing 
and  getting  by  heart  his  poem,  Salamis,  recited  it  in  the  market- 
place as  if  it  were  an  extemporary  outburst,  and  with  Pisistratus' 
aid,  inspired  the  Athenians  to  renew  the  war.^^ 

The  history  of  Greek  eloquence  is  practically  the  history  of  elo- 
quence at  Athens.  In  historic  times  Athens  was  the  city  which  was 
regarded  as  the  true  home  of  eloquence:  (urbs)  in  qua  et  nata  et 
alta  sit  eloquentia,^-  the  city  which  Isocrates  later  made  the  "school 
of  Greece."  ^^  It  was  not,  however,  until  after  the  expulsion  of 
the  tyrants  and  the  establishment  of  the  democracy  that  eloquence 
began  to  flourish  to  any  great  extent  even  in  Athens.^*  For  this 
Cicero  gives  the  reason :  ''nee  enim  in  constituentibus  rem  publicam 
nee  in  bella  gerentibus  nee  in  impeditis  ac  regum  dominatione  de- 
vinctis  nasci  cupiditas  dicendi  solet.  Pacis  est  comes  otiique  socia 
et  iam  bene  constitutae  civitatis  quasi  alumna  quaedam  eloquen- 
tia."2^ 

^°  Plut.  Solon,  c.  Ill ;  cf .  f  r.  4,  where  he  describes  the  evils  of  the  political 
system  which  he  overthrew.  Cf.  in  general,  Begemann,  QuaesHones  Soloneae 
(Gottingen,  1878). 

*^  Plut.    Solon,   c.   VIII : kXtyzla    hk    xgijcpa    mrv^Eig    xal 

ILiE^ex'noag  waxe  Xiytiy  duro  axonaxog  x.  x.  X. 

^  Cicero,  Brut.  X,  39 ;  also  XIII,  49 :  hoc  autem  studium  non  erat  com- 
mune Graeciae  sed  proprium  Athenarum,  Cf.  Velleius  Paterculus  (I,  18)',  who 
probably  had  this  passage  in  mind:  "Una  urbs  Attica  pluribus  annis  elo- 
quentiae  quam  universa  Graecia  operibusque  floruit,  adeo  ut  corpora  gentis 
illius  separata  sint  in  alias  civitates  ingenia  vero  solis  Atheniensium  muris 
clausa  existimes." 

Blair  (Lecture  XXV,  Vol.  II,  186)  says :  "The  most  liberal  endowments 
of  the  greatest  princes  never  could  found  such  a  school  for  true  oratory  as 
was  formed  by  the  nature  of  the  Athenian  Republic.  Eloquence  there 
sprung,  native  and  vigorous,  from  amidst  the  contentions  of  faction  and 
freedom,  of  public  business,  and  of  active  life." 

Compare  Isocr.  XV,  295-8;  IV,  50;  Thucyd.  II,  41,  i. 

«  Cicero,  Brut.  VIII,  32. 

"Before  this  time  Cicero  (Brut.  VII,  2y)  mentions  only  Solon,  Pisistra- 
tus,  and  Cleisthenes  as  men  who  were  considered  able  speakers  "ut  tem- 
poribus  illis." 

*^  Brutus,  XIII,  45;  cf.  Sandys  ed.  of  Cicero's  Orator,  Introd.  p.  3.  For 
the  idea  see  also  de  Or.  I,  4,  14;  I,  8,  30;  II,  8,  33;  Orat.  XLI,  141 ;  Brut.  VI, 
22;  Quint.  I,  16,  I  ff.    These  passages  seem  at  first  sight  to  be  contradicted  by 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    75 

Cicero  says  there  were  no  orators  at  Corinth,  Argos,  or  Thebes, 
and  he  never  even  heard  of  one  belonging  to  Sparta,^®  brevity  of 
speech  being,  in  his  opinion,  of  merely  occasional  importance  in 
oratory. 

The  earliest  practical  development  and  the  real  study  of  oratory 
arose,  however,  not  in  Athens  but  in  Sicily.^^  After  the  expulsion 
of  the  tyrants,  the  return  of  the  exiles,  and  the  consequent  claims 
and  counter-claims  to  property,  there  arose  a  storm  of  litigation 
out  of  which  emerged  the  *'art  of  rhetoric,"  of  which  the  founder 
was  Corax  of  Syracuse.^^  There  is  no  mention  Of  speeches  com- 
posed by  him  either  for  his  own  use  or  that  of  others,  yet  that  he 
did  compose  speeches  seems  very  probable,  since  we  are  told  that 
although  no  one  before  the  time  of  Corax  and  his  pupil  Tisias  ^® 
had  composed  by  rules  of  art,  yet  there  had  been  many  orators  who 
expressed    themselves    carefully    and    who    even    wrote   out    their 

Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  40,  where  it  is  stated  that  internal  dissensions  are  necessary 
for  the  development  of  eloquence,  but  Cicero,  too,  by  "pax"  {Brut.  XII,  45) 
means  freedom  from  foreign  wars ;  cf .  de  Or.  I,  9,  38 ;  de  Invent.  I,  i,  i ; 
also  Longin.  (?)  de  Sublim.  c.  44.  Compare  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Orators, 
p.  32  ff. 

^  Brut.  XIII,  50:  "quis  enim  aut  Argivum  aut  Corinthium,  aut  Thebanum 
scit  fuisse  temporibus  illis?  nisi  quid  Epaminonda  docto  homine  (cf.  Nepos, 
Epam.  IV-V;  Plut.  Apophtheg.  194B;  Agesilaus,  c.  27)  suspicari  libet; 
Lacedaemonium  vero  usque  ad  hoc  tempus  audivi  fuisse  neminem."  Cf.  Veil. 
Pater.  I,  18,  2:  neque  vero  hoc  magis  miratus  sum  quam  neminem  Argivum, 
Thebanum,  Lacedaemonium  oratorem  aut  dum  vixit  auctoritate,  aut  post 
mortem  memoria  dignum  existimatum.  Cf.  also  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  40,  13; 
Quint.  II,  16,  4. 

Thucydides  (IV,  84,  2)  mentions  Brasidas,  but  with  an  important  reser- 
vation: (Brasidas)'  was,  for  a  Lacedaemonian  (65  AaxESaifxoviog)  not  de- 
ficient in  eloquence.  Cf.  also  Athen.  XIII,  611  A;  Schol.  Find.  Isthm.  V,  87. 

"  The  Sicilians  were  naturally  quick  and  disputatious :  Cicero,  Brut.  XIII, 
46;  Verr.  IV,  43,  95. 

^®  Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  46.  On  Corax  see  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,  18-20;  Suidas, 

s.  n 6  xfig  'griTOQixfig  evqctti?.    Scjiol.  ad.  Hermog.   (Or.  Att. 

VIII,  196,  ed.  Reiske)  ;  Croiset,  Hist.  Lit.  Gr.  IV,  42.  Jebb,  Introd.  p.  cxix 
gives  an  excellent  sketch  of  the  causes  which  would  spring  up  at  such  a 
time  and  the  instruction  which  the  claimants  to  property  would  need;  cf. 
also  Navarre,  p.  5  ff.  The  establishment  of  a  popular  ecclesia  (Diodorus 
XI,  y2y  no  doubt  increased  the  need  for  ability  as  a  speaker. 

^^  On  Tisias  see  Blass  I,  20-22. 


76  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

Speeches :  ^^  "itaque  ait  Aristoteles  cum  sublatis  in  Sicilia  tyrannis 
res  privatae  longo  intervallo  iudiciis  repeterentur,  turn  primum,  quod 
esset  acuta  ilia  gens  et  controversiae  nata,  artem  et  praecepta  Siculos 
Coracem  et  Tisiam  conscripsisse ;  nam  antea  neminem  solitum  via 
nee  arte,  sed  accurate  tamen  et  de  scripto  ^^  plerosque  dicere." 

This  judicial  oratory  of  the  Sicilians,  partially  shaped  by  the 
hands  of  Antiphon,  reached  its  earliest  finished  form  in  the  speeches 
of  Lysias,  but  while  it  was  being  so  shaped,  another  branch  of  ora- 
tory, the  political,  was  flourishing  at  Athens,  and  of  this  the  great  ex- 
ample was  Pericles,  ''an  almost  perfect  orator."^^  In  this  first  great 
age  of  eloquence,  the  age  of  Themistocles,  Cimon,  Pericles,  Alcibi- 
ades,  Thucydides,  oratory  had  not  yet  become  the  subject  of  system- 
atic study.  It  was  practical,  and  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the 
theory  of  rhetoric.  Nevertheless  the  orators  whom  this  age  pro- 
duced were  in  Plutarch's  opinion  greater  than  any  who  followed 
them.33 

'"  Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  46.  The  passage  from  Aristotle  was  no  doubt  taken 
from  his  lost  work  owaymyi]  xexvcov  (Diog.  Laert.  V,  24).  Cicero  describes 
it  (de  Invent.  II,  2,  6)  :  "Ac  veteres  quidem  scriptores  artis  usque  a  principe 
illo  atque  inventore  Tisia  repetitos  unum  in  locum  conduxit  Aristoteles  et 
nominatim  cuiusque  praecepta  magna  conquisita  cura  perspicue  conscripsit 
atque  enodata  diligenter  exposuit."  Cf.  also  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  38,  160. 

Spengel.  Art.  Script,  p.  2,  suggests  that  Quint.  Ill,  i,  13,  and  Diog.  Laert. 
II,  104,  may  be  citations  from  this  •work. 

^de  scripto  is  a  disputed  reading.  In  the  manuscripts  there  is  a  vari- 
ation: F,  B,  O,  have  descripto;  C,  de  scripto.  J.  Schmitz  proposes  to 
emend  to  descripte,  and  Eberhard  to  discripte.  It  is  perhaps  easier  to  keep 
de  scripto.  W.  R.  Roberts,  in  the  article  before  referred  to  (Class.  Rev.  18 
[1904]  18-21)  has  shown  that  the  parallel  between  a  recently  discovered 
rhetorical  fragment  and  this  passage  of  the  Brutus  (cf.  p.  9,  n.  8)'  if  accepted 
tends  to  confirm  the  manuscript  reading  de  scripto  as  against  the  conjectural 
emendations  descripte,  and  discripte. 

The  best  evidence,  however,  in  favor  of  the  reading  de  scripto,  is  the 
fact  that  Cicero  frequently  uses  the  phrase  when  he  means  to  speak  or  read 
from  a  written  composition;  Plane.  30,  74;  Phil.  X,  2,  5;  ad  Att.  IV,  3,  3; 
ad  Fam.  X,  13,  i;  Sest.  129;  Leg.  Agr.  II,  48;  Pliny,  Ep.  VI,  6,  6. 

"^  Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  45. 

'^  Speaking  of  Demosthenes  (Dem.  852B)  Plutarch  says:  "and  if  to  the 
nobleness  of  his  principles  and  his  high-souled  eloquence  he  had  added  war- 
like courage  and  hands  clean  from  bribery,  he  would  have  been  worthy  to 
hold  a  place,  not  with  Moerocles,  Polyeuktus,  and  Hyperides,  but  with  Cimon, 
Thucydides,  and  Pericles  of  old." 

Caesar  (Plut.  Caes.  880)  in  commending  Cicero's  eloquence,  compares 
him  to  Pericles  and  Theramenes.  Compare  Dem.  XVIII,  219. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    7/ 

We  have  no  means  of  forming  a  judgment  of  Cimon  as  an 
orator,^*  although  the  fact  that  Plutarch  classes  him  with  Pericles 
and  bestows  such  high  praise  upon  him,  would  lead  one  to  suppose 
that  he  was  an  able  speaker. 

To  the  eloquence  of  Themistocles  there  are  several  references. 
Herodotus  ^^  says :  "At  the  dawn  of  day  all  the  men-at-arms  were 
assembled  together,  and  speeches  were  made  to  them,  of  which  the 
best  was  that  of  Themistocles ;  who  throughout  contrasted  what  was 
noble  with  what  was  base,  and  bade  them,  in  all  that  came  within  the 
range  of  man's  nature  and  constitution,  always  to  make  choice  of 
the  nobler  part.  Having  thus  wound  up  his  discourse,  he  told 
them  to  go  at  once  on  board  their  ships,  which  they  accordingly 
did"  (Rawlinson). 

Thucydides  ^®  describes  him  as  xpccTtaTO?  Sy)  outo?  auTOuxeSta^eiv 
Ta  Seovxa  sysvsto.  The  Pseudo-Lysian  Epitaphiiis^'^  speaks  of  him 
as  one  [/.avcoTaiov  etTustv  v.a\  Yvwvat  xat  Tupa^at.  In  Cicero's  account 
of  the  earlier  Athenian  oratory,  between  the  establishment  of  the 
democracy  and  the  beginning  of  the  Peloponnesian  war,  the  first 
important  name  is  that  of  Themistocles,  "quem  constat  cum  pru- 
dentia  tum  etiam  eloquentia  praestitisse".^^ 

Beyond  these  general  expressions  of  approval,  there  is  almost 
nothing  known  of  the  character  of  Themistocles'  eloquence.  Plu- 
tarch attributes  two  public  speeches  4o  him :  one  at  the  time  of  his 
alleged  proposal  to  bum  all  the  Grecian  ships  except  those  of  the 
Athenians,^^   and   another,   on   the   authority  of   Theophrastus,   at 

^Nepos  speakes  rather  slightingly  of  Cimon  (Cimon,  c.  II):  "habebat 
enim  satis  eloquentiae." 

^  Herod.  VIII,  83.  This  speech  was  evidently  quite  pretentious,  and 
would  argue  quite  a  degree  of  knowledge  of  speechmaking  on  his  part.  We 
can  see  from  Herodotus'  account  that  Themistocles'  speech  contained  several 
of  the  topics  which  later  came  to  be  regarded  as  fixed  parts  of  an  oration. 
It  contained  (i)  a  series  of  antitheses  (xd  be  enea  f\v  Jidvxa,  [xd]  TiQeoofo 
xoiai  f\aaooi  dvxixiOeiiiEva,  00a  8t|  ev  dv^Qcojtov  (pvai  xal  xaxaaxdai  EYYivexai) 
(2)  an  appeal  to  the  Greeks  to  choose  the  better  course  (jtagaivEaa^  6e  xovxwv 
xd  XQEoaco  aloEEO^ai,)  and  finally  a  peroration   (xaxa;i?L£^ag  xt]v  'gfjaiv)'. 

""I,  138. 

'"  sec.  42. 

^Brutus,  VII,  28.  Cicero  elsewhere  quotes  Thucydides'  characterization 
of  Themistocles:  ad  Att.  X,  8,  4;  cf.  also  Himerius  Or.  V,  11. 

'^Plut.  Them.  c.  20,  i.  Cf.  also  Plut.  Arist.  c.  22,  2;  Diodor.  XI,  c.  42; 
Cic.  de  Off.  Ill,  II,  49;  Val.  Max.  VI,  5,  i,  sec.  2.  Grote  (Hist.  Gr.  V,  p.  27, 


yS  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Olympia  against  Hieron  of  Syracuse,  in  which  he  urged  the  Greeks 
to  tear  down  Hieron's  tent  and  not  to  allow  his  horses  to  compete 
for  the  prize.*^  Nepos  says,*^  "multum  in  iudiciis  privatis  versaba- 
tur ;  *^  saepe  in  concionem  populi  prodibat ;  nulla  res  maior  sine  eo 
gerebatur,  celeriter  que  quae  opus  erant  reperiebat ;  neque  minus  in 
rebus  gerendis  promptus,  quam  excogitandis  erat,  quod  et  de  instan- 
tibus  (ut  ait  Thucydides)  verissime  iudicabat,  et  de  futuris  calli- 
dissime  coniciebat." 

There  is  one  passage  in  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  which  is  usually 
understood  to  imply  that  Themistocles'  oratorical  efforts  were  ex- 
temporary. The  author  of  the  Lives  of  the  Ten  Orators  in  speak- 
ing of  Antiphon  says:*^  t(ov  youv  izph  auTOu  [Antiphon]  ysvoixIvcov 
ouB£v6(;  (pspeiai  §txavt/.6?  XoYoq,  dXX'  ouSs  twv  /.ax'  auTOV,  5ta  to  ply)S£tc(«) 
ev  sGss  TO  auYYpa9£{v  elvat,  ou  ©spuaTOX-Xeou?,  oux  'AptaTsfSou  oO  Ilspt- 

xXeou? I  cannot  see  that  this  necessarily  means  that 

the  predecessors  of  Antiphon  made  purely  extemporaneous  speeches. 
The  passage  seems  only  to  say  that  there  were  no  forensic  speeches 
of  these  orators  in  circulation  (cpepeTat,**)  in  published  form  at  the 
time  when  the  author  of  the  Life  of  Antiphon  wrote  his  account. 
The  speeches  may  have  been  lost  before  his  time,  or  the  orators 
may  never  have  put  them  in  shape  for  publication ;  but  in  any  case 
the  lack  of  speeches  does  not  prove  that  Themistocles  failed  to 
prepare  his  oration  before  he  delivered  it. 

n.  2)  says,  "the  story  is  probably  the  invention  of  some  Greek  of  the  Platonic 
age  who  wished  to  contrast  justice  with  expediency  and  Aristides  with 
Themistocles." 

*"  Plut.  Them.  c.  25,  i ;  cf .  Aelian,  Var.  Hist.  IX,  5. 

"  Them.  c.  i. 

**Cf.  Plut.  Them.  c.  5,  4.  Themistocles  is  most  frequently  mentioned 
for  his  excellent  memory  and  for  his  achievement  of  learning  the  Persian 
language  in  one  year.  Cf .  Thucyd.  I,  138,  i ;  Plut.  Them.  c.  5,  4,  and  c.  29,  2 ; 
Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  74,  299;  Quint.  XI,  2,  50;  Philost.  Imagg.  II,  31;  Diodorus, 
XI,  56-57;  Nepos,  Them.  c.  10,  gives  an  exaggerated  account  of  his  attain- 
ments in  this  line;  cf.  also  Val.  Max.  VIII,  7,  15. 

"  Vit.  X  Oratt.  832D.  The  statement  that  it  was  not  customary  may  be 
a  false  statement,  or  merely  an  inference  from  the  fact  that  no  speeches  were 
in  existence  at  that  time. 

**0n  (psQExai  in  this  sense  see  Budaeus,  Comm.  Ling.  Graec.  p.  393.  De 
Aristide:  'Ava^E|i£voc;  ak'kov  Xlava^rivaixov  evteA-tj  xal  li^vxQOv,  og  xal  cpEQExai. 
JuHan,  Or.  p.  189A;  Argum.  Rhesi  Eurip. ;  Schol.  Eurip.  Phoen.  ^77',  Ps- 
Plut.  Ant.  15. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS         79 

Suidas  *^  says  that  the  predecessors  of  Pericles  extemporized ; 
he  was  the  first  to  write  out  a  forensic  speech  before  he  deUvered 
it ;  *^  but  we  cannot  be  sure  that  this  would  apply  to  Themistocles 
for  it  is  a  question  whether  Suidas  would  class  him  as  one  of  those 
xpo  IleptxXeouq/^  although  it  is  probable  that  he  did.  It  is  impossible, 
however,  to  decide  the  point  on  the  testimony  of  Suidas  alone,  and  it 
therefore  seems  as  if  the  question  must  be  left  open  for  lack  of  di- 
rect evidence.*^  The  probabilities  seem  to  me  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
belief  that  Themistocles  was  not  a  purely  extemporary  speaker,  the 
more  so,  since  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  Pericles,  whom  the 
Pseudo-Plutarch  classes  with  Themistocles,  certainly  did  not  rely 
solely  on  the  inspiration  of  the  moment. 

According  to  Cicero,*^  the  earliest  authors  who  have  left  authen- 
tic writings  are  Pericles  and  Alcibiades :  "Antiquissimi  fere  sunt 
quorum  quidem  scripta  constent,  Pericles  atque  Alcibiades  et  eadem 
aetate  Thucydides."    Jebb  ^^  declares  that  the  use  of  "constent"  in 

^'On  the  sources  of  Suidas  and  the  trustworthiness  of  his  accounts  see 
Daub,  A,:  De  Suidae  Biographicorum  origine  et  fide  (Leipzig,  1880);  and 
Studien  su  den  Biographika  des  Suidas  (1882)';  Volkmann,  D. :  De  Suidae 
biographicis  quaestiones  selectae,  (1861),  De  Suidae  biographicis  quaestiones 
alterae  (1867),  De  Suidae  biographicis  quaestiones  novae  (1873). 

^'s.  V.  Pericles. 

*'' Themistocles  was  born  c.  525  B.  C,  Pericles  c.  493  B.  C.  Cicero 
{Brutus  VII,  28)  speaks  of  Cleon  as  the  contemporary  of  them  both. 

*® There  is  an  amusing  story  in  Plutarch  {Them.  c.  2,  3)'  of  the  boy 
Themistocles  inventing  and  arranging  speeches  in  his  play  hours.  One 
could  not  argue  from  this  that  it  was  his  practice  in  later  life  to  be  careful 
about  his  speeches,  although  it  seems  probable  that  he  was  so. 

^''De  Or.  II,  22,  93.  Mure  {Crit.  Hist.  Gr.  Lit.  V,  p.  166)  says:  "There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  specimens  of  Periclean  eloquence  here  vaguely 
referred  to  by  Cicero  are  the  speeches  in  Thucydides."  The  fact  that 
Cicero  mentions  Thucydides  would  be  against  this  view. 

^ Att.  Or.  I,  p.  cxxviii.  Constent,  however,  may  mean  merely  "are  in 
existence,"  and  so  the  passage  may  mean,  not  that  these  particular  speeches 
are  genuine,  but  are  in  existence  as  representative  of  such  writings.  I  have 
been  able  to  find  no  other  passage  in  which  constent  is  used  in  raising  the 
question  as  to  whether  a  given  work  is  or  is  not  genuine.  The  lexicons 
explain  constent  in  this  passage  of  Cicero  by  esse  or  existere,  and  in  this 
sense  the  word  is  frequent  in  Cicero:  Verr.  Ill,  187;  de  Fin.  IV,  54;  V, 
22;  II,  38;  de  Nat.  Deor.  I,  25;  I,  48;  I,  89,  and  elsewhere.  Wilkins  in  his 
note  on  de  Or.  II,  22,  93,  translates  constent  "are  recognized  as  genuine" 
but  gives  no  other  passage  containing  a  similar  use  of  the  word. 


8o  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

this  passage  seems  to  imply  that  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
the  speeches  had  been  investigated.  From  this  statement  alone,  one 
might  suppose  that  Cicero  believed  the  speeches  genuine,  but  as 
Jebb  points  out,  he  elsewhere  speaks  more  doubtfully :  ^^    "Ante 

Periclem  cuius  scripta  quaedam  f  eruntur littera  nulla 

est  quae  quidem  ornatum  aliquem  habeat  et  oratoris  esse  videatur." 

This  seems  to  mean  no  more  than  that  there  were  in  circulation 
in  antiquity  certain  speeches  which  were  ascribed  to  Pericles,  but 
which  were  probably  spurious.  Such,  at  any  rate,  was  the  belief  of 
Quintilian,^^  who,  after  quoting  the  above  passage  of  the  Brutus, 
adds :  "Equidem  non  reperio  quidquam  tanta  eloquentiae  f  ama  dig- 
num ;  ideoque  minus  miror  esse  qui  nihil  ab  eo  scriptum  putent,  haec 
autem  quae  feruntur  ab  aliis  esse  composita." 

Elsewhere  ^^   Quintilian  positively  asserts  that  no  writings  of 

Pericles  were  extant  in  his  time:   " Periclem,   cuius 

eloquentiae,  etiamsi  nulla  ad  nos  monumenta  venerunt,"  and  ".  . 
.  .  .  in  agendo  clarissimos  quosdam  nihil  posteritati  mansurisque 
mox  litteris  reliquisse  ut  Periclem"  etc. 

It  may  perhaps  be  suggested  that  the  speeches  ascribed  to  Peri- 
cles in  Cicero's  time  and  those  known  to  Quintilian  were  not  the 
same,  and  that  the  former  may  have  been  genuine.  To  support  such 
a  thesis  one  must  suppose  that  the  authentic  writings  were  lost  be- 
tween the  time  of  Cicero  and  that  of  Quintilian,  and  that  the  speech- 
es Quintilian  knew  were  imitations  of  the  true  ones  mentioned  by 
Cicero.  There  is  no  evidence  for  such  a  belief ;  it  seems  an  arbitrary 
assumption. 

We  may,  then,  accept  it  as  Quintilian's  view  that  the  speeches 
in  circulation  in  his  time  under  the  name  of  Pericles  were  spurious. 

Suidas  ^*  says  very  positively  that  the  predecessors  of  Pericles 

^^  Brutus,  VII,  27. 

"^  Quintilian,  III,  i,  12. 

"XII,  2,  22;  10,  49. 

"s.  V.  Pericles.  Pericles  delivered  a  number  of  forensic  speeches  in 
addition  to  those  which  we  know  (Ps.-Plut.  Antiph.  5).  He  must  have 
delivered  one  in  his  own  defense  (Plut.  Peric.  c.  35,  3-4),  since  according  to 
Athenian  law  (cf.  Meier-Shomann,  Att.  Process,  II,  p.  919,  n.  438)  a  man 
must  make  a  speech  at  his  own  trial,  even  if  the  speech  were  written  for 
him,  or  he  later  employed  an  advocate  to  speak  in  his  behalf.  This  speech 
might  be  one  of  only  a  few  words,  before  the  speech  of  the  advocate.  There 
is  no   evidence  that   Pericles   employed   an   advocate,   and   it   is    extremely 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    8l 

had  extemporized ;  he  was  the  first  who  wrote  out  a  forensic  speech 
before  he  delivered  it:  [IIsptTtXYi?]  'prixtjip  y.(x\  lTi\L(xy(si^bq,  oait? 
xpo)TO?  Ypa:cTOv  Xoyov  ev  St>taffTY]pj(p  elxs,  xwv  irpo  auTOu  (j/sSia^ovTWv, 
but  we  cannot,  of  course,  form  a  definite  judgment  from  the  evi- 
dence of  Suidas  f-'  this  must  be  supported  by  other  reliable  authori- 
ties. I  find  a  like  statement  in  no  other  author  except  Eudocia 
Augusta  ^®  who  clearly  followed  Suidas. ^^  Apparently  the  statement 
is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  passage  in  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  quoted 
above.^^ 

Plutarch  ^^  says  Pericles  left  nothing  in  writing  behind  him  ex- 
cept some  decrees,  and  that  there  are  very  few  of  his  sayings 
recorded:  sfypaqjov  [Jiev  oOv  cuSsv  (ZTuoXeXotTus  xXy^v  twv  (j;riq3t(T[jLaT(ov 
d7U0[JiVY;]jL0V£U£Tai  S'oXtYa  TuavTaxaatv. 

Lucian,*^^  quoting  from  comedy,  says  Pericles  could  lighten  and 
thunder  and  that  he  possessed  ^'TustOout;  xt  vivipov."  He  adds:  "So 
much  tradition  tells  us,  but  we  have  nothing  left  from  which  to  form 
a  judgment,"  in  the  last  sentence  referring  of  course  to  the  lack  of 
written  productions. 


probable  that  a  man  of  his  character  and  position  would  deliver  the  princi- 
pal speech  in  his  own  defense.  He  also  made  a  speech  against  Cimon 
(Plut.  Peric.  c.  lo,  5;  Cim.  c.  14,  4;  Arist.  Ath.  Pol;  c.  27),  and  one  on  be- 
half of  Aspasia  (Plut.  Peric.  c.  32,  3;  Athen.  XIII,  589E).  Cf.  also  Plut. 
Peric.  c.  12,  possibly. 

On  the  elusion  of  this  law  which  was  effected  by  delivering  speeches 
prepared  by  others,  see  Quint.  II,  15,  30. 

•"Cf.  n.  45. 

^  Violarium,    p.    353:      IlEQixXfii; 'qiitooq    xal    811111070)765, 

ooTig  jiQWTog  YQOj-txov  X6yo\  Sixaaxrigiq)  eljie,  xwv  jiqo  avxoC  axeSicxtovxcov. 

"  See  Flach,  J. :  Untersuchungen  Uber  Eudokia  und  Suidas,  Leipzig,  1879. 

On  the  authenticity  of  the  Violarium  see  Pulch,  P.:  Hermes,  XVII,  177; 
Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  Ill,  489;  IV,  109;  V,  114  ff. ;  VII,  104. 

='  Vit.  X  Oratt.  832D ;  cf.  p.  78. 

^Pericles  c.  8.  These  opTicpia^iaxa  (cf.  c.  10,  3;  17,  i;  20,  2;  25,  i;  29,  i; 
30.  3;  34,  2)  were  probably  taken  from  the  liJ'ncpiaM.dxcov  auvaytoYri  or  copies 
of  the  original  decrees  made  by  Craterus  (Plut.  Arist.  c.  26,  2).  The 
originals,  kept  in  the  temple  of  the  Mighty  Mother  at  Athens,  were  stolen 
by  Apellicon  (Athen.  V.  53).  At  the  capture  of  Athens  by  Sulla  they  were 
carried  to  Rome  (Plut.  Sull.  26).    See  Cobet.  Mnemos.  N.  S.  I,  p.  97  ff. 

^  Encom.  Demosth.   20: cxsivou    [IlEQixXeovg]    [lev   ye  xa^ 

doxQOJtag  xal  Pgovxdg  xal  jiei^ov?  xi  xevxgov  b6^r\  KagaXa^ovxe^,  aXX'  amr]v 
yz  ovx  OQWHEv Cf.  n.  7  and  n.  9. 


82  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Finally  Sopater  ®^  bears  witness  that  neither  Themistocles  nor 
Pericles  committed  any  speeches  to  writing.  They  and  the  other 
orators  of  their  time  spoke  aypa^wc;.  Philostratus  ^^  states  that  there 
are  some  who  believe  that  extemporary  speech  began  with  Pericles, 
but  he  seems  rightly  to  doubt  the  statement. 

Now  if  we  accept  as  correct  the  verdict  of  Quintilian  as  to  the 
speeches  ascribed  to  Pericles,  there  remains  no  record  of  any  written 
speech  of  his.  This  lack  of  record,  however,  gives  no  trustworthy 
ground  for  the  belief  that  Pericles  did  not  prepare  his  speeches  be- 
fore delivering  them.®^ 

For  the  moment  we  may  disregard  the  statement  of  Suidas,  until 
we  see  how  much  we  are  justified  in  inferring  from  the  other  pas- 
sages cited.  The  statement  in  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  is  limited  to  one 
class  of  speeches,  the  5ty,avt%oi  Xoyot,  and  seems  to  mean  no  more 
than  that  there  was  no  such  speech  by  Pericles  in  circulation  in 
published  form.^*  This,  as  well  as  Plutarch's  affirmation  that 
Pericles  left  nothing  in  writing,  s^Ypacpov  [jl£V  ouv  ouSsv  dxoXsXoJxe,  can 
by  no  means  be  taken  as  conclusive  proof  that  Pericles'  speeches 
were  extemporary.  The  record  of  the  effect  produced  by  his  ora- 
tions would  seem  to  make  this  belief  improbable.  The  comic  poets, 
a  class  of  men,  as  Quintilian  says  ^^  "not  at  all  inclined  to  flattery," 
said  that  the  power  of  his  eloquence  was  scarcely  credible.     They 

"'^  Prolegom.  in  Aristidem  (Arist.  Ill,  737,  ed,  Dindorf)':  xpEig  cpogal 
'ot]t6qo)v  Y£Yovaaiv,  Sv  f|  \isv  nQiaxt]  ay Q&cpox;  eXeyev,  fjg  eoxi  ©Efiiaxox^fis 
xal  IlEQixXfjg  xal  ol  xax'  exsivovg  *qtitoq8?  •  f)  8e  fiEvxega  eyyqokpo)?  eA-eyev, 
f\q  ion  AriiLioa^Eviig  xai  Alax^vrig  xal  TooxQdxr]g  xal  ovv  avxotg  f|  jtQax- 
xoM-EVT]  xwv  'qtixoqcov  beyAc,.  Compare  Apsines,  quoted  by  Spengel,  Art. 
Script,  p.  93. 

^  Vit.  Soph.  Praef.  4,  p.  481 :  axeSicov  8e  JiiiYag  Xoywv  oi  m-ev  ex  Heqi- 
xA,£Ovg  'gvfivai  jiqcoxou  (jpaaiv,  o^ev  xal  M-EYag  6  nEQix?tfjg  Evojiiadri  xt)v  Y^tox- 
xav £|iiol  8e  jiXEioxa  piEv  dv^Qo'maw  Alaxivrig   Soxei  oxEfiidoat 

^^  Pericles  prayer  (see  n.  78)  that  no  word  might  escape  him  foreign  to 
the  subject  with  which  he  was  to  deal,  would  almost  imply  verbal  prepara- 
tion. 

^The  contradiction  between  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  and  Suidas  is  only 
apparent.  The  author  of  the  Life  of  Antiphon  says  merely  that  there 
were  no  Sixavixol  ?l6yoi  of  Themistocles,  Aristides,  or  Pericles  in  circulation. 

•"XII,  2,  22. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    83 

compare  his  energy  to  "thunder  and  lightning  from  heaven."  ®^  He 
was  the  "Olympian,"  ^'^  on  whose  lips  "persuasion  was  seated,"  ^^  and 
"he  alone  of  all  the  orators  left  a  sting  in  the  minds  of  his  hear- 
ers".®^ Thucydides  ^^  calls  him  lupwio?  'AOrjvattov,  Xsysiv  t£  xai 
TCpaaaetv  SuvaKoxa-uoq.  Plato  '^  speaks  of  him  as  iuavT(Ov  TsXs(OTaT0(; 
zlq  TY)v  'prizopiY.riV.  Plutarch  ^^  says  that  Pericles  used  to  govern 
Athens  by  sheer  force  of  character  and  eloquence.     To  Cicero  ^^ 

"Aristophanes,  Acharn.  530;  Quintilian  II,  16,  17-19;  XII,  10,  24;  65; 
Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  17;  Cicero,  Orat.  IX,  29;  de  Orat.  Ill,  34,  138.  In  the 
Brutus  (IX,  38;  XV,  59)  Cicero  assigns  the  passage  of  Aristophanes,  or 
a  similar  passage,  to  Eupolis.  He  evidently  did  so  at  first  in  the  Orator 
(IX,  29)  but  had  it  corrected  when  Atticus  pointed  out  the  error  (ad  Att. 
XII,  6,  3)'.  Cf.  De  Quincey  (ed.  Masson,  1890)  Vol.  X,  325. 

«^Plut.  Perk.  c.  8,  2;  Athenaeus  X,  48,  436F;  XII,  45,  533C;  XIII, 
56,  589D;  Aristoph.  Acharn.  530;  Cicero,  Orat.  IX,  29;  Diodor.  XII,  40, 
5;  XIII,  98,  3;  Val.  Max.  V,  10,  ext.  i ;  Lucian,  Imagg.  17;  Theon,  Progym. 
(Rhet.  Gr.  II,  in,  9,  Sp.)  ;  Plut.  Mor.  118E;  Pliny,  AT.  H.  XXXIV,  8,  19. 

^  Eupolis,  Afjfxoi  ( Meineke,  II,  458-9 ;  Kock,  I,  281 )  :  IleiM  T15  sjtexddi^ev 
dm  T015  x£i?.8aiv.  Quint.  X,  i,  82;  XII,  10,  65;  Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  34,  138; 
Brut.  XV,  59;  Himerius,  Or.  XXIII,  4;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  17;  Val.  Max.  VIII, 
9,  2.  Cf.  ^schines'  insinuation  that  Demosthenes  is  trying  to  ape  Pericles 
(III,  256).  In  like  manner  Ennius  calls  M.  Cethegus  "flos  delibatus  populi 
suadaeque  medulla"  (Cicero,  Brut.  XV.  58;  Quint.  II,  15,  4). 

""Eupolis,  AfiiLioi: 

ovTCoi;  exriXei  xal  [lovog  xoav  'qtitoqov 

TO   JCEVTQOV   EYXaxeXElJlE   TOig   dxQOCOJXEVOl?. 

Cicero,  Brut.  IX,  38;  de  Or.  Ill,  34,  138;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  17;  Val.  Max. 
VIII,  9,  ext.  2. 

'"I,  139,  4.  Cf.  also  Hermogenes  {Rhet.  Gr.  II,  392,  14,  Sp.)  :  .  .  . 
.     .    Tov  rtEQKpavcog  fifiivoTaxov  y^yovoxa.  "kiyeiv  xov  IlEQixA-Ea. 

"^^Phaedrus,   269E.     Cf.    Isocrates,   XV,    234:     'qtitcoq   aQioxog,    compare 

XV,  315. 

^^Plut.  A^^V.  Ill,  (524D)  :  IizQiyXr\c,  |xev  ohi  ojto  xe  (XQExfj?  d>.Ti^ivfi5  xal 

"Koyov  fiirvd^iECog  xtiv  Jt6>av  dycov Plutarch  goes  on  to  say  that 

Pericles   required  no  tricks  of  manner  or  plausible   speeches   to   gain   him 

credit  with  the  populace: ovSevo^  eSeixo  G%'^\iaxiG\iov  kqoc,  xov 

ox^ov  ouSe  m^avoxaxog.  Perhaps  Plutarch  meant  to  contrast  Pericles  with 
Cleon,  who  was  the  first  to  abandon  the  dignified  calm  assumed  by  speakers ; 
cf.  Plut.  Nic.  VIII;  Tib.  Gracch.  II;  Quint.  XI,  3,  123;  and  the  Scholiast 
on  Lucian,  Tim.  c.  29  (quoting  Theopompus). 

See  also  Diodorus,  XII,  38,  2;  (6  n£QixA,fJ5)  Xoyov  Seivoxyixi  koXv  jtqoexcov 
d;tdvxcov  xcbv  jtoXixwv.     Plut.  Pol.  Praec.  802C;  Peric.  VII,   i. 

'^^De  Or.  I,  50,  216: eloquentissimus  Athenis  Pericles;  also 

de  Or.  Ill,  34,  138;  Brut.  VII,  29;  IX,  38;  XI,  44;  XII,  45;  XV,  59- 


84  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

he  was  "the  best  orator  in  Athens"  and  Themistius  '^*  gives  him 
like  praise,  assigning  the  merit  for  it  to  the  teaching  of  Anaxagoras : 

(tyjv  xoXtv)   HeptxT^sa  STuatvouaav  [Jiovcv  v.a\  'AaTuaatav, 

d)?  'piQTopa?  TsXeatoupYOu?  xe  y.a(  6(};y3X6vou<;,  OTt  evt  t^?  'Ava^aYOpou 

That  the  cautious  Pericles  should  have  been  willing  to  trust  solely 
to  the  "natural  gift"  which  Plato  says  was  his/^  in  his  speeches,  and 
when  he  wished  to  produce  an  effect  on  the  people  should  have 
relied  on  "a  stream  of  fortuitous  eloquence"  such  as  Quintilian  says 
"iurgantibus  etiam  mulieribus  superfluere  video"  "  is  not  probable. 

In  addition  to  the  probability  that  such  a  high  degree  of  elo- 
quence required  preparation,  there  are  passages  which  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  Pericles  actually  did  prepare  his  speeches.  Plutarch  says :  '^^ 
ou  (iY)v  dXXa  7,at  outgx;  6  H&piv.'kric,  xspl  tov  Xoyov  e6XafY)(;  y)v,  wjt' 
aet  zpbq  ^YJ^jia  PaSt^(Ov  Y]ux£fO  lolq  0£Ot<;  [at^Ss  ^pri\L(x  {jlyjSsv  £y.7U£(7etv 
dxovTO?  auToG  izphq  tyjv  xpo)t£t[JLevY]v  xp£'<3f^  av ap pt,oaTOV.  Such  a  prayer 
certainly  seems  to  imply  careful  preparation  beforehand;  moreover 
the  adjective  fiuXagYJ?  ^^  would  hardly  be  applied  to  a  man  who 
trusted  to  the  inspiration  of  the  moment  even  for  choice  of  words. 
The  same  story  appears  elsewhere  in  Plutarch  in  a  context  which 

'*0r.  XXVI,  p.  396  (ed.  Dind). 

"With  this  passage  compare  Plato,  Phaedrus,  270A  and  Scholiast  on 
261A;  Cic.  de  Or.  Ill,  34,  138;  Brut.  XI,  44-5;  Orat.  IV,  15  (with  Sandys' 
note);  Plut.  Perk.  c.  IV;  c.  VI;  Himerius,  Or.  XXIII,  4;  V,  11;  Quint. 
XII,  2,  22  (Pericles,  Demosthenes,  Cicero)  ;  also  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,^  p.  34 
ff. ;  Pseudo  Dem.  Erot.  45;  Diodor.  XII,  38-41;  Lucian,  Timon,  V,  10;  Val. 
Max.  VIII,  9,  2;  II,  ext.  i;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Pericles;  Diog.  Laert.  II,  Anaxag. 
c.  IX;  Isocr.  XV,  235.  For  philosophy  as  an  aid  to  eloquence  see  Cicero, 
d£  Or.  I,  19,  88. 

'"Plato.  Phaedrus,  270A.  Philostratus  (p.  493)  and  Suidas  (s.  n.)  make 
Pericles  and  Thucydides  when  old  men,  the  pupils  of  Gorgias;  cf.  also  Eud. 
Aug.  CCLI. 

"X,  7,  13. 

'«PmV.  c.  VIII,  4.  Cf.  also  Aelian,  Var.  Hist.  IV,  10;  Quint.  XII,  9,  13. 

■^  Plut ;  Perk.  c.  VIII,  4 :  IlEQixXfig  jteqI  tov  X670V  euXaprig.  EvXapri? : 
discreet;  careful  in  speaking;  Plato,  Polit.  311 A-B;  Plut.  Fah.  c.  17; 
C.  Gracch.  c.  3;  Dem.  XIX,  206;  Schol.  Arist.  Eq.  13.  In  later  Greek,  and 
particularly  in  ecclesiastical  writers  and  in  the  New  Testament,  the  word 
comes  to  have  a  mainly  religious  significance :  careful  in  one's  dealings 
towards  the  gods,  reverent,  pious :  Ev.  Luc.  2,  25 ;  Act.  Ap.  25,  8,  2,  and 
often  in  Christian  inscriptions. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    85 

leaves  no  doubt  of  the  meaning.  In  his  Political  Precepts  ®^  Plutarch 
speaks  as  follows:  ''Let  your  (i.  e.  the  would-be  statesman's)  chief 
endeavor,  therefore,  be  to  use  to  the  multitude  a  premeditated  and 
not  empty  speech,  and  (you  may  do)  that  with  safetyj  knowing  that 
even  Pericles  himself,  before  he  made  any  address  to  the  people, 
was  wont  to  pray  that  he  might  not  utter  a  single  word  foreign  to 
the  matter  with  which  he  was  to  deal".  There  would  be  little  point 
in  the  application  of  the  story  if  the  speeches  Pericles  made  after 
uttering  his  prayer  were  extemporary. 

In  still  another  passage  *^  Plutarch  says  that  Demosthenes,  whose 
aversion  to  speaking  extempore  was  well  known,  followed  Pericles 
''in  his  forbearing  to  speak  on  the  sudden  or  upon  every  occasion" : 
aXX'  £oty,sv  6  oiWTip  xou  UzpiySkiouq  to:  [jlsv  aXXa  [jly)  izphq  auxov  YjY'^craaOat, 
TO  Be  xXaajjia  ^ac  tov  (jy\Laziu\Lbv  auTOu  y.at  to  [jly]  Ta7S(0(;  [jly]5£  Tuepi 

TuavTO?  £7,  Tou  TcaptdTajxsvo'j  Xl^stv ^^     If   Pericles   and 

Demosthenes  were  alike  in  this  respect,  then  the  statement  in  the 
Pseudo-Plutarch  must  be  understood  to  mean  only  that  no  speeches 
of  Pericles  were  in  circulation,  and  the  statement  of  Suidas  may  be 
regarded  as  authoritative.  The  other  passages  which  might  seem  to 
indicate  that  Pericles'  speeches  were  extemporary,  are  merely  state- 
ments to  the  effect  that  he  left  no  written  speeches  behind  him. 
They  do  not  prove  that  he  did  not  write  his  orations  before  delivery. 
He  may  not  have  cared  to  revise  and  publish  them.  He  may  have 
felt  that  such  an  act  would  not  have  been  consistent  with  his  practice 
of  reserving  his  appearance  in  public  for  exceptional  occasions,*^ 
or  he  may  have  preferred  that  the  impression  he  made  upon  the 
people  should  be  a  personal  one.  Lastly,  his  reason  may  have  been 
the  one  given  in  Plato's  Phaedrus,^'^  where  we  are  told  that  men 

^  Pol.  Praec.  803 F : \i6Xi<5xa  piev  o&v  eo>c8[X|lievci)  Jteigto  xai 

M-T)  fiiaxevo)  T(p  Xoycp  XQ^<J^ai  nQoc,  xovc,  koIXovc,  jAex'  dacpaXEiai;,  elSo)?  oti 
xal  nEQLx?ifjg  EXEivog  tiuxeto  kqo  tov  8tim,tiyoq£iv  \ii[\hk  'Qfjixa  |iiti8ev  oXkoxQX.O'v 
Twv  jTQaYpiaTcov  ejieXOeiv  auTcp. 

^Dem.  c.  9,  3;  also  de  Educat.  Puer.  c.  9. 

^  The  phrase  ex  toO  jtaQiaxa^Evou  does  not  appear  in  Greek  before 
Aristotle.  It  occurs  fairly  often  in  later  literature:  Plut.  Dem.  c.  9,  2;  Mor. 
639D;  Dion.  c.  5,  4;  Lucian,  Charon,  c.  13,  and  elsewhere. 

"Plut.  Peric.  c.  7,  5 ;  cf.  Mor.  811C. 

^  Plato,  Phaedr.  257D :  ot  \xiyiaTO\  SuvdiLiEvoi  te  xal  aE^ivoTaxoi  ev  xaig 
jioXeoiv  aiaxmrovxai  Xoyoug  xe  ygacpeiv  xal  xaxaX,£iJtEiv  GvyyQ6.\.iaxa  Eauxcov, 
86iav  (popovpiEvoi  xoO  E;t£ixa  xQovou  m-t)  aoq)iaxal  xaXcovxai. 


86  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

high  in  political  life  shrank  from  writing  speeches  lest,  if  any  of 
their  productions  lived  after  them,  they  should  gain  from  posterity 
the  name  of  "sophists".^^  Lucian's  explanation,^^  that  there  re- 
mained no  means  of  forming  an  estimate  of  Pericles's  oratory  be- 
cause, beyond  the  momentary  impression  produced,  there  was  in 
his  performances  no  element  of  permanence,  nothing  which  would 
stand  the  test  of  time,  is,  of  course,  a  possible  one.®^  It  seems  im- 
probable, however  that  speeches  of  that  sort  could  "leave  a  sting  in 
the  minds  of  the  hearers".  The  fact  that  Pericles'  productions 
have  not  survived  is  no  proof  that  they  did  not  deserve  to  do  so. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  reason  for  the  non-survival  of 
written  speeches  by  Pericles,  it  seems  very  probable  that  his  pro- 
ductions were  in  the  main,  the  result  of  preparation  and  study.  He 
probably  did,  as  Plato  says,  have  a  natural  gift  for  speaking,  but 
mere  extemporary  eloquence,  however  clever,  could  not  have  pro- 
duced the  effect  ascribed  to  Pericles'  speeches.  His  cautious  charac- 
ter would  also  make  it  unlikely  that  he  would  rely  solely  on  his 
natural  ability,  particularly  on  such  important  occasions  as  those  of 
his  policy  speech,  the  funeral  oration,  etc.  Of  the  passages  bearing 
on  the  subject,  those  in  Cicero  and  Quintilian  are  concerned  with 
certain  speeches  ascribed  to  Pericles.  If  the  speeches  were  authentic, 
then  it  is  probable  that  Pericles  wrote  them  before  rather  than  after 
delivery.  His  only  reason  for  writing  them  after  delivery  would 
have  been  because  he  wished  them  to  be  published.  If  they  were 
spurious,  as  Quintilian  believed,  that  fact  by  no  means  proves  that 
Pericles  extemporized  solely.  It  does  not  mean  that  he  did  not 
write,  but  that  he  did  not  publish.    Suidas  states  plainly  that  Pericles 

"'The  name  of  "sophist"  as  well  as  that  of  'KoyoyQ6.(pog  was  held  in 
disrepute,  although  in  the  strict  etymological  sense  neither  of  the  two  terms 
would  imply  reproach  (cf.  Thompson's  Phaedrus,  Introd.  p.  xxvii)':  Plato, 
Phaedr.  257C;  258D;  Protag.  312A;  Arist.  Soph.  Elench.  c.  34;  Dem.  XIX, 
246;  ^sch.  Ill,  173,  200,  215;  I,  170;  Dinarchus,  I,  iii,  and  elsewhere. 

^  Encom.  Demosth.  c.  20 :  dXX'  auxr|v  ye  ovx  6qco|ii8v  8fiA,ov  0)5  vjiep  xtiv 
cpavxaaiav  ovbev  e\i\iovov  ^xovoav  ovb*  olov  slagxeaai  kqoi;  rfiv  xoii  xQovov 
Pdaavov  xal  xqioiv. 

^Quintilian  (XII,  10,  49-56)  says  that  many  men  of  great  learning 
have  thought  that  the  reason  why  Pericles  and  Demades  left  nothing  in 
writing  was  because  the  modes  of  speaking  and  writing  are  essentially 
different.  Pericles  and  Demades  were  speakers,  not  writers.  Isocrates  was 
a  writer,  not  a  speaker.    Quintilian  denies  the  truth  of  this. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    87 

wrote  out  at  least  one  kind  of  speech,  the  §i^avivt6?  Xoyo?  before  he 
delivered  it.  Plutarch's  statement  that  he  left  nothing  behind  him 
except  decrees,  cannot  be  used  as  proof  that  his  speeches  were  ex- 
temporaneous. The  testimony  of  the  author  of  the  Life  of  Antiphon 
seems  outweighed  by  the  three  passages  of  Plutarch  ^^  mentioned  in 
the  discussion. ^^ 

^^Peric.  c.  8,  4;  Dem.  c.  9;  Pol.  Praec.  803F. 

^The  funeral  oration  in  Thucydides  (II,  35-46),  supposed  to  be  de- 
livered by  Pericles,  as  well  as  the  other  speeches  attributed  to  him  by  the 
historian  (I,  145;  II,  60),  are,  of  course,  not  genuine.  Thucydides  himself 
(I,  22)  has  disposed  of  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of  all  the  speeches: 
0)5  8'  av  eSoxouv  Efxoi  exaaxog  jieqI  xcov  alsi  jiaQovxoav  xa  Seovxa  ixaXiax' 
EiJTEiv,  ExojAEVQ)  oxi  EYYUxaxtt  xfjg  §DM,;idar]g  7vo)|xi1?  ^div  dXY)#(bg  ^ex^evxcov, 
ovxcog  £iQT)xai,  The  words  eXeye  [n£Qi5<>.fig]  xoid8E  (II,  34),  as  well  as 
6  \izv  IXEQixA-fig  xoiaijxa  eIjiev  (I,  145)  and  xoiauxa  6  IlEQix^ifig  Xeycov  (II, 
65)  show  that  Thucydides  made  no  claim  to  give  the  actual  speech.  Diony- 
sius  {de  Thucyd.  lud.  c.  44,  p.  924)  regards  the  speech  of  Pericles  simply 
as  the  composition  of  Thucydides  and  criticizes  it  as  such.  Sandys  (Cicero's 
Orator,  Introd.  p.  3)  says:  "Thucydides  gives  us  only  the  substance  of  three 
of  the  great  orator's  speeches  as  seen  through  the  transforming  medium  of  the 
historian's  mannerisms."  Mure  (Crit.  Hist.  Gr.  Lit.  V,  168  ff.)  attempts  to 
reconstruct  Pericles'  speech  by  sifting  out  the  palpably  Thucydidean  matter. 
His  attempt  shows  clearly  that  the  speech  in  its  present  form  could  not  have 
been  delivered  by  Pericles.  Cf.  Jebb,  The  Speeches  of  Thucydides  (Essays 
and  Addresses  p.  381  ff.)  ;  Attic  Orators,  II,  424;  Blass,  I,  227-239;  Auffen- 
berg,  L. :  De  orationum  operi  Thucydideo  insertam  origine,  vi  historica, 
compositione  (Pr.  1879);  Heimann,  A.:  De  Thucydidis  orationibus,  (1833)'; 
Hiippe,  O. :  De  orationibus  operi  Thucydidis  insertis  (Pr.  1874)  ;  Tiesler,  C. ; 
Ueber  d.  Reden  d.  Thukydides  (Pr.  1854).  Also  Macaulay's  remarks  on  the 
speeches  of  Thucydides  in  his  Essay  On  the  Athenian  Orators.  On  the 
funeral  oration  of  Pericles  see  Weber,  K.  F. :  Ueber  die  Stand-Rede  des 
Perikles  (Darmstadt,  1827);  Westermann :  Gesch.  der  Bereds.  sees.  35, 
63.  64. 

Busolt  (Griechische  Geschichte  II,  602,  n.  2)  gives  a  list  of  authorities 
for  supposing  that  the  quotation  in  Plutarch  (Peric.  c.  8,  5):  x6  AiYivav 
(bg  Xr][i'r]v  xov  JlEigaicog  dcpeleiv  •asXevoai,  and  the  famous  saying  xr)v  vEoxrixa 
Ix  xfjg  ji6/.E(og  dvtiQfiai^ai  wojieq  x6  eag  ex  xoij  Eviavxov,  twice  quoted  by 
Aristotle  (Rhet.  I,  7,  34;  III,  10,  7)  belong  to  the  speech  delivered  over 
those  who  fell  in  the  Samian  war  (Plut.  Peric.  c.  28,  24).  Mure  (Crit.  Hist. 
Gr.  Lit.  V,  166)  with  less  reason  would  place  the  quotations  in  the  speech 
over  those  who  fell  in  the  first  year  of  the  Peloponnesian  war.  Athenaeus 
(III,  55)  attributes  the  remark  about  Aegina  and  that  about  the  loss  of  the 
young  men  of  Greece  to  the  orator  Demades.  In  Herodotus  (VII,  162) 
Gelon,  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  is  quoted  as  making  the  the  same  remark. 


88  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

As  to  Alcibiades,  no  specimens  of  his  oratory  seem  to  have  ex- 
isted in  ancient  times,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Cicero  mentions 
him  as  one  of  the  two  most  ancient  authors  who  have  left  authentic 
writings. ^^  The  Pseudo-Plutarch  ^^  agrees  with  Cicero  and  also 
attributes  written  orations  to  him.  The  writings  referred  to  in  this 
passage,  however,  like  those  attributed  to  Pericles,  are  probably 
spurious. 


The  funeral  oration  in  the  Menexenus  (236C-249C)  is,  of  course,  Plato's 
own  production  (cf.  Jebb,  I,  301,  and  Jowett,  Introd.  to  Menex.).  It  is  as- 
cribed to  Aspasia,  and  purports  to  be  in  part  impromptu  on  her  part,  and  in 
part  composed  of  passages  from  a  funeral  oration  delivered  by  Pericles  but 
written  for  him  by  Aspasia  (236B-C;  cf.  249C-E)l  Socrates'  pretended  re- 
luctance to  repeat  the  oration  lest  Aspasia  be  angry  with  him  if  he  publishes 
her  speech  (236C),  is  part  of  the  jest  of  the  whole.  A.  G.  Becker,  Demosthe- 
nes als  Sta^tsniann  und  Redner,  says :  "Some  funeral  orations  were  actually 
spoken  at  the  ceremony;  others  were  only  sketched  out  by  the  writers  whose 
names  they  bear,  without  having  been  delivered  on  such  an  occasion.  To  the 
latter  class  belongs  avowedly  the  noble  oration  of  Plato  in  the  Menexenus, 
which  the  philosopher  puts  in  the  mouth  of  Socrates,  with  the  assertion  that 
it  was  composed  by  Aspasia,  It  seems  that  Plato,  dissatisfied  with  the  ordi- 
nary forms  of  these  public  funeral  orations,  wished  to  show  by  a  specimen, 
how  the  orators  might,  on  so  important  an  occasion,  express  themselves  in 
a  more  lofty  way  than  they  were  accustomed  to  do. 

In  the  same  class,  it  seems,  we  must  place  the  oration  of  Pericles  in 
Thucydides  (II,  34).  For  though  the  historian  ascribes  it  to  that  statesman, 
it  is  most  probably  a  work  of  his  own  design  and  composition,  like  the  rest 
of  his.  speeches  ascribed  to  other  men." 

The  funeral  oration  incorporated  in  the  Menexenus  was  much  admired 
by  the  Greeks.  Cicero  tells  us  that  it  was  publicly  recited  every  year  at  the 
celebration  of  the  annual  funeral  rites  in  honor  of  those  citizens  who  had 
perished  in  their  country's  service  (Orat.  XLIV,  151).  Cf.  also  Dion.  Hal. 
de  Dent.  c.  23,  compared  with  Ars  Rhet.  c.  6. 

The  story  of  Aspasia's  having  been  the  teacher  of  Pericles  and  even  of 
Socrates,  although  of  course  unworthy  of  belief,  is  often  referred  to  in 
antiquity:  Plut.  Perk.  c.  24,  4;  Plato,  Menex.  235E;  Schol.  Plat.  Menex.  p. 
391;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  IV,  c.  19,  124  (ed.  Klotz)  ;  Alciphron,  Ep.  I,  34,  7; 
Athen.  V,  61,  219B;  Philost.  Ep.  7Z,  2. 

^  de  Or.  II,  22,  93.  Helbig,  on  very  insufficient  grounds,  has  assigned 
to  Alcibiades  the  Pseudo-Xenophontic  treatise,  De  reditibus  Atheniensium. 

"  Vit.  X  Oratt.  832D :  oooug  jaevtoi  e'xojiev  em  to  JtaA-aioxaxov  dvacp^QOv- 
TEg  aKoiivY\\iovevaai  xriv  iSeav  twv  X67COV  xauxriv  \x£Tax£iQiaa[ii\ovq  xoi3xov5 
EVQOi  xig  av  £Jii|3E|3^T|x6xag  'Avxicpwvxi  KQea^vxw  r\br\  ovxi,  olov  'AA.>ti3id8Tiv, 
Kgixiav,  Auaiav,  'Aq/ivov.  Alcibiades  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of 
Gorgias:  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  9,  2. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    89 

Demosthenes  in  one  passage  ^^  says  of  him :  /.al  Xsyscv  e36/.ei 
TcavTcov,  w?  qjaat,  elvai  SetvoTaxo*;.  The  phrase  w?  ^aat,  although  it 
seems  to  imply  that  no  written  orations  existed  from  which  a  judg- 
ment could  be  formed,  cannot  be  taken  as  absolute  proof  that  such 
was  the  case.^^ 

As  in  the  case  of  Pericles,  the  fact  that  no  speeches  written  by 
Alcibiades  were  in  existence  does  not  prove  that  he  was  an  extem- 
porary orator.  We  are  told  that  he  was  an  eloquent  and  persuasive 
speaker.  Plutarch  says :  ^*  *'And  that  he  was  a  capable  orator,  the 
comic  poets  bear  witness,  and  the  most  powerful  of  public  speakers 
in  his  oration  against  Midias  says  that  Alcibiades,  in  addition  to 
other  admirable  qualities,  was  a  most  accomplished  orator." 

Lucian,  in  praising  an  orator,  says  that  "when  he  came  forward 
to  speak,  the  whole  city  listened  to  him  open-mouthed,  as  men  say 
the  Athenians  of  old  did  to  Alcibiades."  ^^ 

Cicero  describes  him,  with  Pericles  and  Thucydides,  as  "subtiles, 
acuti,  breves,  sententiis  magis  quam  verbis  abundantes."  ^^  This 
would  be  a  rather  strange  characterization  if  Alcibiades  had  been  a 
purely  extemporary  speaker.  It  is  true  that  Cicero  may  have  had 
in  mind  the  speeches  in  Thucydides,  for  he  says  elsewhere  ^^  that 

^Dem.  XXI,  143.  This  passage  is  also  quoted  in  Plutarch,  Alcib.  196A. 
Buttman,  in  his  note  on  the  Midias  passage,  argues  that  Demosthenes  was 
simply  adapting  his  language  to  the  ignorance  of  his  audience,  but  a  fair 
interpretation  of  the  passage  implies  that  Demosthenes  himself  knew  no 
published  speeches  of  Alcibiades.  Cf.  also  Westermann,  Gesch.  der  Bereds. 
I,  2,    sec.  39. 

^  The  phrase  &c,  qpaai  is  not  to  be  pressed.  The  Attic  orators,  even  when 
quoting  well-known  facts  of  history  like  to  give  them  an  air  of  tradition : 
cf.  Isocr.  IV,  87;  VI,  99;  XII,  154;  XIV,  571  Dem.  IV,  17;  XIV,  30;  XV,  22; 
XVI,  7;  XX,  12;  161;  XXI,  36;  62;  144;  XXIII,  116;  117;  XXIV,  212; 
XXVI,  6;  XL,  25;  LIV,  18,  and  elsewhere. 

^  Alcib.  196A.  Cf.  also  Nepos,  Alcib.  c.  i:  disertus,  ut  imprimis  dicendo 
valeret  quod  tanta  erat  commendatio  oris  atque  orationis,  ut  nemo  ei  dicendo 
possit  resistere.     Plut.  Nic.  528C. 

^  The  Scythian,  c.  11 :  "In  truth,  when  he  speaks  in  public,  the  whole  city 
listens,  open-mouthed,  just  as  they  say  the  Athenians,  once  upon  a  time,  listen- 
ed to  Alcibiades." 

""de  Or.  II,  22,  93;  cf.  Ill,  16,  59- 

^^  Brut.  VII,  29.  The  fact  that  Alcibiades'  speech  to  the  Spartans  (Thucyd. 
VI,  89-93)  is  in  Attic,  not  Doric,  would  be  of  no  value  in  determining  the 
question  of  the  authenticity  of  the  speech.  Neither  Xenophon  nor  Thucy- 
dides use  dialect  speeches.     Occasional  Doric  words  may  be  found,  but  the 


90  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

the  character  of  the  eloquence  of  the  time  of  Alcibiades,  Critias,^® 
and  Theramenes,^^  may  be  inferred  from  the  writings  of  Thucy- 
dides:  "grandes  erant  verbis  crebri  sententiis,  compressione  rerum 
breves  et  ob  eam  ipsam  causam  interdum  subobscuri/'  What  Cicero 
probably  meant  by  this  statement  was  that  Thucydides,  in  the  speech- 
es attributed  to  Alcibiades,  gives  the  best  specimens  of  the  style  of 
oratory  which  prevailed  at  the  time,  and  which  Alcibiades  and  his 
contemporaries  probably  followed.  It  can  hardly  be  that  Cicero 
means  that  the  speeches  are  to  be  taken  as  representing  the  actual 
productions  of  Alcibiades.  In  the  first  place,  neither  Critias  nor 
Theramenes  make  a  formal  speech  in  Thucydides,  and  besides  it 
was  impossible  that  a  man  of  Cicero's  intelligence  could  have  failed 
to  see  that  the  speeches  in  Thucydides  are  speeches  by  Thucy- 
dides.^*^ 


Spartan  generals  address  their  troops  in  Attic  Greek.  Blass  (I,  234-5,  2nd. 
ed.)  points  out  that  the  speeches  of  the  Spartans  in  Thucydides  are  as 
Jengthy  as  any  others  and  are  in  Attic,  not  Doric. 

Attic  Greek  probably  became  the  official  language  or  dialect  in  the  sub- 
ject states  early,  and  an  authentic  speech  in  Attic  by  Alcibiades  to  the  Spar- 
tans is  not  impossible.  Cf.  Bonner,  R.  J. :  The  Mutual  Intelligibility  of  Greek 
Dialects,  Classical  Journal,  IV,  356  ff. 

**  There  were  extant  in  Cicero's  time  some  writings  by  Critias  (de  Or. 
II,  22,  93).  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  mentions  his  orations  (de  Lys.  c.  2; 
de  Isaeo  c.  20;  de  Thucyd.  c,  51)  as  does  Phrynicus  (ap.  Phot.  Cod.  158). 
That  he  was  eloquent  and  learned  we  are  told  by  Cicero  (de  Or.  Ill,  34,  139; 
Brut.  VII,  29;  cf.  Xen.  Mem.  I,  2,  16)'.  Hermogenes  quotes  as  to  oratory  his 
jigooifiia  8Y)M,T]Y0Qixd  (Rhet.  Or.  II,  415-6  Sp.).  Philostratus  (Vit.  Soph.  I,  16, 
5;  II,  I,  35)  characterizes  his  method  of  speaking;  cf.  also  I,  19,  2;  Ep.  72,,  2. 
Only  a  few  trifling  fragments  of  his  prose  works  remain.  He  also  wrote 
tragedies,  elegies  and  other  works.  The  remains  of  his  writings  have  been 
collected  by  Bach  (1827).  Cf.  also  Westermann,  p.  58. 

^Of  the  eloquence  of  Theramenes  Cicero  says  he  only  heard  (de  Or. 
II,  22,  93;  cf.  Ill,  16,  59;  Brut.  VII,  29),  The  writings  attributed  to  him  by 
Suidas  (s.  v.  Theramenes)  are  doubtless  spurious.  "They  seem  to  be"  says 
Ruhnken  (Hist.  Crit.  Orat.  Gr.  p.  xli)  "the  productions  of  later  sophists,  as 
Quintilian  puts  it  (II,  4,  41),  fictas  ad  imitationem  fori  consiliorumque  mater- 
ias  apud  Graecos  dicere  circa  Demetrium  Phaleria  institutum  fere  constat." 
Cf.  also  Eud.  Aug.  p.  231 ;  Westermann,  p.  57. 

^""It  is  true  that  Thucydides  seems  to  take  more  pains  to  make  the 
speeches  of  Alcibiades  fit  his  character  (cf.  Thucyd.  VI,  18,  3-4)  than  he 
does  in  the  case  of  the  others,  but  the  attempt  is  a  very  transparent  one  and 
could  hardly  have  deceived  Cicero.    Furthermore,  Cicero  has  elsewhere  pro- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    9I 

All  Cicero  seems  to  mean  is,  that  because  of  the  lack  of  authentic 
speeches,  one  can  conjecture  what  sort  of  oratory  existed  in  the 
time  of  Alcibiades  from  the  speeches  of  Thucydides  who  belonged 


nounced  judgment  on  the  speeches  in  Thucydides.  He  says  in  one  passage 
(Brut.  LXXXIII,  287)  :  orationes  autem  quas  interposuit  (multae  enim  sunt) 
eas  ego  laudare  soleo;  imitari  neque  possim  si  velim,  nee  velim  fortasse,  si 
possim."  Cf.  Orat.  IX,  30;  "nihil  ab  eo  transferri  potest  ad  forensem  usum  et 
publicum;  ipsae  illae  contiones  ita  multas  habent  obscuras  abditasque  sen- 
tentias,  vix  ut  intellegantur ;  quod  est  in  oratione  civili  vitium  vel  maximum ;" 
also  Orat.  IX,  31-32;  LXXI,  234;  de  Opt.  Gen.  15-16;  de  Or.  II,  56;  93;  Brut. 
LXXXIII,  288;  cf.  also  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Thucyd.  c.  55.  Polybius  (XII,  25) 
criticises  Timaeus'  disregard  for  truth  in  the  speeches  in  his  history. 

To  take  the  orations  in  the  historians  as  representative  of  the  actual 
speech-making  ability  of  the  Greeks  is  of  course  impossible.  Particularly 
true  is  this  in  the  case  of  the  type  of  speech  known  as  the  "general's  speech," 
and  yet  the  very  existence  of  such  a  type  implies  that  the  Greek  generals 
possessed  the  ability  to  speak  extempore  to  some  degree  at  least.  Even  in 
Homeric  times  an  assembly  might  be  called  by  any  chief  at  a  moment's  no- 
tice (cf.  //.  I,  54;  11,  50  ff.;  VII,  345;  VIII,  489;  IX,  9;  X,  299;  XVIII,  249; 
XIX,  4  ff.  and  elsewhere)  at  which  the  different  heroes  might  be  called  upon 
to  speak,  a  custom  which  still  prevailed  in  the  Greek  army  in  historic  times 
(cf.  Xen.  Anab.  I,  3,  3-7;  9-19;  III,  i,  15;  III,  i,  35;  45;  3,  12,  and  elsewhere; 
compare  Thucyd.  VIII,  93).  It  was  an  absolute  necessity,  then,  that  the  men 
in  authority  should  be  able  to  express  themselves  clearly  on  matters  of  im- 
portance without  preparation,  (cf.  Norden,  Antike  Kunstprosa,  I,  87)'.  As 
Jebb  (II,  39  ff.)  says:  "The  power  of  speaking  coherently  and  effectively  in 
a  law-court,  in  a  public  assembly  or  at  a  public  festival,  held  a  place  in  old 
Greek  life  roughly  analogous  to  that  which  the  journalistic  faculty  holds  in 
modern  Europe.  The  citizen  of  a  Greek  republic  might  be  called  upon  at 
any  moment  to  influence  public  opinion  in  behalf  of  certain  interests  or 
ideas,  by  a  neat,  pointed,  comprehensive  address,  which  must  be  more  or  less 
extemporary."  The  ability  to  utter  fitting  words  of  encouragement  to  the 
soldiers  before  battle  is  placed  by  Socrates  among  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions for  a  general  (Plato,  Ion.  540D ;  cf.  also  Theon,  Rhet.  Gr.  II,  115  Sp.), 
but  the  elaborate  productions  given  in  the  historians  as  general's  speeches  are 
justly  subjected  to  criticism.  As  Plutarch  says  {Praec.  Ger.  Reip.  803B) 
in  speaking  of  the  highly  finished  productions  found  in  Ephorus,  Theopompus, 
and  Anaximenes :  "ovSelg  0i6tiqou  xavxa  ^icogami  mXac,  axac,.  (Eurip.  Autol. 
ig.  284,  22). 

The  general's  speech  may  be  found  in  its  first  stage  in  Homer  in  the  en- 
couraging words  uttered  before  battle  by  the  leaders  to  the  soldiers  (//.  IV, 
234  ff. ;  294  ff. ;  VI,  66;  iii;  123,  and  elsewhere.  Cf.  also  yEsch.  P^r^a^,  400  ff. ; 
Eurip.  Suppl.  700  ff. ;  Heraclidae,  820  ff.  In  lyric  poetry  the  poems  of  Callinus 
and  Tyrtaeus  take  the  place  of  the  general's  speech.    A  form  of  it  occurs  in 


92  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

to  the  same  age:  "quibus  temporibus  quod  dicendi  genus  viguerit 
ex  Thucydidi  scriptis,  qui  ipse  turn  fuit  intellegi  maxume  potest." 

Himerius  has  the  following  statement  about  Alcibiades  and  his 
power  as  an  orator  r^'^^  'A'ky.i^KX^T^q  sTuetSr)  izXripriq  Au/.£tou  v.ou  twv  ev 

Tuavuac;  tg)  Oau^jLOCTt,  axoxYjSiqaa*;  Auxstou,  B(5(oatv  eauxov  ^Yj^jLoata  tux*?) 
%al  Tupa^sat  •  §oug  5s  oaov  xoi?  XoYOt?  Toaouiov  TOt(;  oxXoi?  svtx.Yjo'sv. 

So  much  for  Alcibiades'  oratory  in  general.  There  remain  sever- 
al passages  which  seem  to  show  that  he  should  not  be  regarded  as  an 
extemporary  orator. 

''He  was,"  says  Plutarch,"^  ''an  excellent  orator,  and  so  careful 
in  his  choice  of  words  and  phrases  that  he  would  pause  in  the  midst 
of  his  discourse  if  a  particular  apt  expression  for  the  moment  es- 
caped him  and  stand  silent  until  he  recollected  it." 

Elsewhere  ^^*  Plutarch  attributes  this  hesitation  to  confusion  due 
to  lack  of  proper  preparation :  eait  Ss  /.at  XeyovTai;  eauiwv  Xajigavstv 
8ia:t£tpav  el  pi-^TS  xoXXwv  luapa  xpoaSoxcav  cuvsXOovtwv  utuo  5£iX(a(; 
avaSuopLsOa,  [jl'^t'  ev  bXiyoiq  a8u[JLoij|i£v  aY(ov{J^6[JL£vot,  [1'^t£  xpoq  Sr[Aov  iq 

7Up6?  Cfp;(t)V  £l7C£tV  S£YJjaV  ev8£!a  TY]?  7U£pt  TY]V  Xs^tV  XapacrX£UY)?  7:pOt£[JL£6a 

Tov  y.atp6v  ola  x£pi  AYjpioaOlvou?  Xfiyouai  y.(x\  'AXy.t^ta5ou.  /.at  yap  O'jto? 
vo*^<Tat  [JL£V  xpaYjiaxa  SetvoxaTO?  wv  Tuept  Bs  tyjv  Xs^tv  dSapasaxepo?  sauxov 

Herodotus  (for  example,  VIII,  83),  and  it  is  often  found  in  Xenophon  {Anah. 
I,  7,  3-8;  III,  2;  IV,  8,  10;  Cyrop.  I,  4,  and  elsewhere. 

For  a  full  discussion  of  the  general's  speech,  its  tojxoi,  etc.,  see  Burgess, 
Epideictic  Literature,  p.  209  ff. 

'<»0r.  V,  12;  also  £c/.  17,  8. 

^•"For  Alcibiades  as  a  pupil  of  Socrates  see  Cic.  de  Or.  Ill,  34;  Pseudo 
Dem.  Erot.  45;  Philost.  Ep.  VII,  i;  FiV.  ^o/)/^.  I,  9,  2;  cf.  Xen.  Mem.  I,  2, 
40-46,  where  he  gets  the  better  of  his  uncle  Pericles  in  an  argument  about  law. 

^"'Alcib.  196A:  el  6e  08oq)QdaT(i)  maxEvoiiEv  avSgl  cpdrixow  xai  Iotoqixw 

JiaQ*   OVTIVOUV    TCOV    (piXoOOCpCOV,    £UQ£IV    M,8V    'HV    TOt     SEOVXtt    Xal    VOfjaai    JtdvTCOV 

ixavcoxaxog  6  'AA-xiPidSrig,  ^tixcov  8e  iixt)  ^lovov,  a  Sei  Xeyeiv,  dX.?id  xai  0)5 
Sei  xoig  6v6|iiaoi  xal  xoig  'grmaoiv^  oux  EVJtogwv  8e,  koXKoxic,  EaqpdX^EXo  xal 
(XExaiv  Xeymv  djiEoicojta  xal  8i£X,£i;tE,  'Ki^eayi;  bia(pvyovay]<;  auxov,  dvaXaiiipdvcov 
xal  biaonojioviieyoq.  Compare  Goldwin  Smith,  Reminiscences  p.  359,  of 
John  Stuart  Mill:  "His  speeches  were  written,  and  he  sometimes  lost  the 
thread.  But  he  would  not,  like  less  scrupulous  speakers,  fill  the  gap  with 
mere  words;  he  would  wait,  however  awkward  the  pause  might  be,  till  the 
thread  was  recovered." 

^•^  On  man's  progress  in  virtue,  80C-D. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    93 

Stwxcov  ovopia  y.at  'p^(xa  Sta^euyov  e^sxtTcxev/^^  Furthermore,  Plutarch 
would  hardly  class  a  successful  extemporary  speaker  with  Demos- 
thenes, whose  dislike  to  speak  without  preparation  was  an  established 
fact. 

Again,  in  his  Political  Praecepts  ^^^  Plutarch  says  that  a  ready 
tongue  is  an  indispensable  possession  for  the  man  who  would  lead 
in  political  affairs,  as  is  the  ability  to  speak  on  a  moment's  notice.^^^ 
Lack  of  this  ability  is  the  reason  why  Demosthenes  was  deemed  in- 
ferior to  many,  as  they  say.  Plutarch  then  adds,  on  the  authority 
of  Theophrastus,  the  same  story  that  appears  in  the  Life.  There 
would  be  no  fitness  in  telling  the  story  here  if  Alcibiades  had  not 
been  unwilling  to  speak  extempore.  The  inference,  then,  is  that  he 
was  accustomed  to  prepare  his  speeches  before  delivery. 

It  seems  probable,  then,  that  both  Pericles  and  Alcibiades  made 
their  speeches  the  object  of  study,  and  that  they  could  not  have  been 
extemporary  orators.  How  much  knowledge  of  the  "art  of  oratory" 
they  possessed  cannot  be  told,  but  there  is  no  reason  why  the  opin- 
ion Quintilian  expresses  of  Lysias,  Herodotus,  and  Thucydides, 
should  not  hold  equally  well  for  Themistocles,  Pericles,  Alcibiades, 
or  any  Athenian  who  sought  to  influence  his  countrymen  by  his 
oratory:  'Ttaque  ut  confiteor,  paene  ultimam  oratoribus  artem 
compositionis,  quae  perfecta  sit,  contigisse;  ita  illis  quoque  priscis 
habitam  inter  curas,  in  quantum  adhuc  profecerant,  puto."^^^ 

When  we  come  to  the  Attic  orators,  the  first  who  have  left  com- 
plete written  orations,  we  are  better  able  to  judge  of  the  amount  of 
preparation  spent  by  the  orators  upon  their  speeches.  First  there  is 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  speeches  themselves ;  their  perfect  finish 
and  polish,  the  judicious  use  of  figures,  and  the  extreme  condensation 

^**  8XJti;iTco  here  means  to  forget  what  one  has  before  prepared  or  written 
down.  It  is  the  word  used  by  ^schines  when  he  charges  Demosthenes  with 
forgetting  his  speech  before  Philip,  II,  34;  also  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  2; 
II,  I,  36;  II,  32,  2. 

^*'8o3F-8o4A. 

^'"  This  was  particularly  true  at  Athens.  Cf.  Fenelon's  remark  (quoted  by 
Croiset,  IV,  19)  :  "A  Athenes  tout  dependait  du  peuple,  et  le  peuple  dependait 
de  la  parole." 

^"^Blass  (P  276)  however,  thinks  Alcibiades  never  prepared  his  speeches 
in  writing. 

^^^  IX,  4,  16-17. 


94  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

of  Style.  This,  however,  cannot  be  taken  as  perfectly  decisive  proof 
of  preparation  before  delivery,  because  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the 
spoken  speech  and  the  one  we  now  read  were  exactly  the  same.  We 
know  that  some  of  the  Roman  orators  at  least,  carefully  revised  the 
speeches  they  had  delivered  before  they  allowed  them  to  be  pub- 
lished."« 

Besides  this  evidence  of  the  diction,  we  have  many  cases  of 
repetition  of  passages  in  different  compositions  of  an  orator,  or 
even  the  appearance  of  the  same  passage  in  the  works  of  several 
different  orators.  There  are  cases  in  which  speeches  were  prepared 
for  delivery  and  later  published,  but  which  were  never  actually  de- 
livered before  an  audience.  There  are  stock  parts  of  speeches,  such 
as  prooemia,  composed  by  orators  in  such  general  terms  as  to  be 
applicable  to  almost  any  speech,  and  kept  on  hand  for  sudden 
needs.  We  know  how  great  pains  some  of  the  orators  took  to  ac- 
quire their  art,  and  we  also  know  that  some  of  them  were  never 
willing  to  run  the  risk  of  an  extemporary  speech.  There  are  instances 
where  the  orator  frankly  admits  that  he  has  prepared  his  speech, ^^^ 
and  finally,  what  seems  a  very  clear  argument  against  the  belief  that 
the  speeches  were  extemporary,  there  are  many  very  transparent 
efforts  to  give  the  orations  an  air  of  spontaneity. 

As  far  as  the  diction  of  the  speeches  of  the  Attic  orators  is  con- 
cerned, it  cannot,  as  has  been  said,  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  prepar- 
ation beforehand.  We  cannot  tell  how  great  a  command  over  lan- 
guage the  orator's  training  may  have  given  him.  It  is  possible, 
though  not  probable,  that  a  skillful  orator  may  always  have  used  the 
right  word  in  the  right  place  even  in  an  extemporary  speech,  and 
also  have  employed  just  the  right  figure  where  it  would  have  the  best 
effect,  but  certainly  the  conciseness  characteristic  of  the  Attic  orators 
would  argue  against  the  belief  that  the  speeches  were  in  the  first 
place  extemporary.  Repetition  and  prolixity  are  the  acknowledged 
signs  of  unpremeditated  discourse ;  condensation  implies  thought  and 
effort.     Indeed,  condensation  is  so  striking  a  characteristic  of  the 

""Cicero,  for  example;  for  his  practice  see  p.  158. 

^  Demosthenes.  Cf.  XXI,  191 ;  Plut.  de  Educat.  Puer.  9.  The  preparation 
in  Demosthenes'  case  was,  I  think,  practically  verbal.  While  his  speech  was 
thoroughly  prepared  and  memorized,  there  was  of  course  freedom  for  the 
orator  to  insert  any  extemporary  matter  which  might  be  necessary  or  ad- 
visable. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    Oq 

Attic  orations,  that  it  almost  leads  one  to  believe  that  the  speeches 
in  their  present  form  could  not  possibly  have  been  delivered  before 
an  audience,  and  that  the  spoken  speech  was  worked  over,  polished, 
perhaps,  and  condensed,  and  then  reduced  to  writing  in  its  present 
form."^  The  question  arises,  could  an  Athenian  audience,  even 
granting  all  the  natural  quickness  that  has  been  attributed  to  it,  and 
all  the  critical  taste  it  had  acquired  from  listening  to  the  finest  pro- 
ductions,"^ have  appreciated  Demosthenes'  speeches,  for  example, 
after  hearing  them  once  ?  Perhaps  so,  if  all  the  Greeks  were  as  good 
judges  as  the  old  market-woman  who  mortified  Theophrastus  by 
calling  him  Ssvoq  for  no  other  reason  than  that  his  Attic  Greek  was 
too  Attic."*  It  might  be  argued  from  this  very  conciseness  that  the 
present  form  of  the  speeches  is  not  the  one  in  which  they  were 
originally  delivered,  and  that  explanatory  words  and  phrases,  neces- 
sary to  the  hearer  but  not  to  the  reader,  have  been  omitted  from  the 
published  speech. 

Granting,  however,  so  far  as  the  diction  of  the  speeches  is  con- 
cerned, that  the  orators  might  have  been  able  to  extemporize  so 
successfully,  and  granting  that  "in  general  intelligence  the  Athenian 
populace  far  surpassed  the  lower  orders  of  any  community  that  has 
ever  existed,"  ^^^  let  us  see  what  the  actual  practice  of  the  orators 
was  in  regard  to  extemporary  speech. 

Before  taking  up  the  Attic  orators,  however,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  say  a  few  words  about  Gorgias  with  whom  the  history  of  Greek 
oratory  begins. 

According  to  Blass  "^  the  art  of  the  sophists  was  first  brought 
to  Athens  not  by  Gorgias  but  by  Protagoras.  One  might  naturally 
expect  to  find  that  the  speeches  of  the  sophists,  who  claimed  uni- 
versal knowledge,  were  wholly  extemporary,  but  such  was  not  the 
practice  of  Protagoras  himself  nor  of  his  pupils.  He  prepared 
certain  general  topics  called  ''commonplaces"  which  he  made  his  pu- 

"^  Cf.  Brougham's  Dissertation  on  the  Eloquence  of  the  Ancients,  Edin- 
burgh Review,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  86  ff. ;  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Orators,  p.  198. 

"*  See  Macaulay's  Essay  On  the  Athenian  Orators. 

*"  Quint.  VIII,  I,  2;  Cic.  Brut.  c.  XLVI,  172. 

"^  Macaulay,  On  the  Athenian  Orators. 

^^^  Att.  iBereds.  I  (2nd.  ed.)  p.  23  ff.  On  Protagoras  see  Frei,  Quaestiones 
Protagoreae,  Bonn,  1845. 


96  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

pils  commit  to  memory/^^  These  prepared  topics,  of  so  general  a 
nature  that  they  were  applicable  to  almost  any  speech,  and  on  sub- 
jects which  were  most  likely  to  occur  in  a  discussion,^^^  were  elab- 
orately worked  out  beforehand  and  brought  in  as  opportunity 
offered.  A  good  example  of  the  way  in  which  these  topics  were  em- 
ployed may  be  seen  in  Plato's  Protagoras.  In  this  dialogue  Pro- 
tagoras is  asked  by  Socrates  to  prove  that  virtue  can  be  taught.^^^ 
Protagoras  agrees  and  gives  his  hearers  a  choice  as  to  the  method 
of  procedure,  whether  he  shall  prove  his  point  by  relating  a  fable  or 
by  argument.  The  hearers  leave  the  choice  to  Protagoras,  and  he 
chooses  to  relate  a  fable.  There  follows  the  myth  of  Prometheus  and 
Epimetheus,^^^  doubtless  Plato's  own  production,  but  still  just  such 
a  "display  speech"  ^^'^  as  the  sophists  must  have  written  by  the 
score. 

"^Cicero,  on  the  authority  of  Aristotle,  states  that  Protagoras  was  the 

first  to  do  this,  Brut.  XII,  46: scriptasque  fuisse  et  paratas  a 

Protagora  rerum  illustrium  disputationes  quae  nunc  communes  loci  appellan- 
tur.    Cf.  Aristotle,  Soph.  Elench.  c.  34;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  12. 

"*  Aristotle,  Soph.  Elench.  c.  34:  "ready-made"  speeches  which  were  be- 
lieved to  cover  the  topics  likely  to  be  discussed,  were  learned  by  heart. 
Aristotle  believes  this  method  unscientific.  Elsewhere,  however,  Aristotle 
declares  that  one  should  learn  by  heart  arguments  on  the  problems  that 
oftenest  arise,  and  also  that  one  should  have  "ready-made"  arguments  for 
the  conclusions  that  are  oftenest  wanted,  and  for  those  problems  where  proof 
is  difficult  to  extemporize:  {Top.  VIII,  12  (14),  4;  6;  7;  17;  cf.  Top.  II.  5,  i; 
Soph.  Elench.  XII,  2  and  4. 

Cf.  the  saying  attributed  to  Protagoras  (Diels,  fr.  10)':  \vi\hk\  elvai  M-ri'ce 
TexvY)v  av8v  m-eXettis  ilitite  \iz'kixy\\  avev  XEXvrig.  (Stob.  Flor.  29,  80). 

'""  Cf.  Philostratus,  Vit.  Soph.  I,  10,  494. 

"°  This  is  clearly  shown  by  the  words  used  in  the  Protagoras  (328D)  : 
nQOTayoQag  |ii£v  xooauxa  xal  xoiaOxa  EJiiSEildpiEvog.  Cf.  also  Navarre,  p.  39. 

EmfiEilig  and  ejiifiEixwodai  are  the  standing  expressions  for  such  displays. 
The  author  of  the  Prolegomena  ad  Hermog  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  15,  Walz)  uses 
the  same  word  of  Gorgias  on  the  occasion  of  the  famous  embassy:  eX^ovxo? 
be  FoQYiou  Elg  xdg  'Adrivag  E;i£8£i|axo  exei  X,6yov  xal  EuSoxipniaE  Jidvu,  &axE 
f)vixa  ejteSeixvvxo  Xoyov  6  PoQYiag  eoqxtiv  d:JiQdxxov  £jcoi6vv  'A^Tjvaioi,  xal 
Xa\mabac,  xoug  A-oyovg  auxoO  wvopiaoav.  Prodicus'  Choice  of  Heracles  is 
an  EmfiEi^ig  (Xen.  Mem.  II,  i,  21  ff.)'.  Cf.  also  Plato,  Protag.  317C;  320C; 
347B;  Hipp.  Mai.  286A,  of  Hippias'  fine  speech;  Gorg.  447A;  B;  C; 
Axiochus,  336C;  Cratylus,  384B  (of  Prodicus'  course  of  lectures);  Eryx. 
398E;  Euthyd.  274D;  275A;  278C;  272D;  Gorg.  458B;  Hipp.  Min.  363A;  C; 
D ;  364B ;  Hipp.  Mai.  282B ;  C ;  285C,  287B ;  Ion,  530D ;  542A ;  Phaedr.  235A ; 
Protag.  328D  and  elsewhere. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    97 

Of  course  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  sophists  to  seem  to  speak 
without  preparation,  but  nevertheless  their  speeches  doubtless  were 
largely  composed  of  brilliant  discussions  of  topics  prepared  in  ad- 
vance, brought  into  the  discourse  as  opportunity  offered,  and  pieced 
together  with  extemporary  oratory. 


One  of  the  earliest  uses  of  the  verb  in  this  sense  occurs  in  Aristophanes, 
E-Q-  349  (cf.  also  Ran.  771).  Both  verb  and  noun  occur  frequently  in  Isocrates: 
II,  7;  IV,  4;  17;  V,  25;  27;  17;  93;  XII,  271;  272;  X,  9;  15;  XV,  55;  I47;XI, 
9;  Ep.  VI,  4,  and  elsewhere. 

In  the  lists  of  the  sophists'  productions  are  given  titles  of  lectures  which 
must  almost  necessarily  have  been  written  discourses  which  they  probably 
knew  by  heart.  Diogenes  Laertius  (IX,  55),  speaking  of  the  works  of  Pro- 
tagoras which  were  extant  in  his  time  and  so  were  written  treatises,  mentions 
the  following :  a  treatise  on  the  Art  of  Contention,  one  on  Wrestling,  one  on 
Mathematics,  one  on  a  Republic,  one  on  Ambition,  one  on  Virtues,  one  on  the 
Original  Condition  of  Man,  one  on  Those  in  the  Shades  Below,  one  on  Things 
that  are  not  Done  Properly  by  Men,  one  volume  of  Precepts,  one  essay  en- 
titled Justice  in  Pleading  for  Hire,  two  books  of  Contradictions. 

Of  these  there  are  several  which  were  clearly  lectures  and  as  such  were 
no  doubt  delivered  more  than  once.  According  to  Zeller  (Pro-Socratic  Phil- 
osophy, II,  409,  n.  2)  the  81XT1  viJtEQ  nioi^oO  (Diog.  Laert.  IX,  55),  if  genuine, 
may  have  discussed  the  theme  of  the  law-suit  with  Euathlus,  and  the  anecdote 
rose  from  it :  if  not  genuine,  then  the  anecdote  gave  rise  to  its  fabrication. 
This  would  be  an  excellent  theme  for  a  sophist's  lecture. 

Diogenes  says  (IX,  54)  that  the  first  of  Protagoras'  works  that  he  ever 
read  (dvEYvco)  in  public  was  the  treatise  on  the  Gods  which  he  read  "at 
Athens  in  the  house  of  Euripides,  or  as  some  say,  in  that  of  Megaclides ; 
others  say  that  he  read  it  in  the  Lyceum,  his  pupil  Archagoras,  the  son  of 
Theodotus,  giving  him  the  aid  of  his  voice."  This  was  the  treatise  which  was 
burnt  for  political  reasons  (Plato,  Theatet.  171D;  Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.  I, 
2Z,  63;  Diog.  Laert.  IX;  51 ;  54;  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  XIV,  19,  10;  Philost.  Vit.  Soph. 
I,  10;  Joseph,  c.  Ap.  II,  Z7\  Sext.  Empir.  Adv.  Math.  IX,  56  and  elsewhere). 

Parts  of  the  'A^rjOeia  from  which  came  the  famous  sentence,  "Man  is  the 
measure  of  all  things"  (Plato,  Theat.  152A;  161C;  see  also  155E;  162A; 
166B;  170E;  171C;  Craty.  386C;  391C)  may  have  been  used  as  lectures.  The 
Scholiast  on  Theatetus  161  says  'AA.ri'dEia  was  the  name  of  the  work  (see, 
however,  Sext.  Empir.  Adv.  Math.  VII,  60;  Porph.  ap.  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  X,  3,  25, 
and  the  discussions  of  the  matter  in  Frei,  p.  176  ff. ;  Bernays,  Rhein.  Mus.  VII, 
464  ff. ;  Schanz,  Beitr.  z.  Vorsokr.  Phil.  I,  H,  29  ff . 

The  myth  of  the  Protagoras  (320  ff.)  is  believed  by  Zeller  (p.  471)'  to  be 
taken  from  a  treatise  of  Protagoras.  Steinhart  (PI.  Werke,  I,  422)  doubts  this 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  too  good  for  Protagoras.  Frei  (p.  182)  believes  it  to 
be  taken  from  the  treatise  jteqI  Tfjg  ev  aQjcfj  xaxaoxdaECog,  but  Bernays  {Rhein. 
Mus.  VII,  466)  believes  the  last-mentioned  work  to  be  a  rhetorical  treatise. 


98  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Protagoras'  contemporary,  Gorgias/^^  another  of  the  crowd  of 
rhetoricians  who  appeared  "as  soon  as  the  force  of  a  regular  and 
well-adjusted   style   was   understood,"  ^^-   belonged   to   a   different 


If  we  can  believe  Diogenes  Laertius,  the  lectures  of  Protagoras  and 
Prodicus  were  read:  0^x05  (Protagoras)  xai  IIqoSixo?  6  Keiog  "koyovi; 
dvaYivc6axovTE5  'figavi^ovxo. 

Grorgias  is  said  to  have  read  his  Olympic  oration  (Plut.  Coni.  Praec.  c. 
43)';  another  account  says  he  recited  it;  cf.  Hieronymus,  quoted  by  Wytten- 
bach  on  Plutarch  144B. 

Among  the  works  of  Prodicus  (cf.  Welcker,  Kleine  Schr.  II,  393-541)' 
are  mentioned  several  which  must  have  been  memorized  "displays."  Such 
was  his  famous  fifty-drachma  emSeiiig,  (Plato,  Crat.  384B;  Arist.  Rhet.  Ill, 
14,  9)  ;  his  Heracles,  of  which  the  proper  title  was  "Qgai  (Schol.  on  Aristoph. 
Clouds  360;  Suidas:  Sgai,  IIooS;  Cicero,  de  Off.  I,  32,  118)  of  which  the  con- 
tents are  given  by  Xenophon  {Mem.  II,  i,  21  ff.)  and  which  he  may  have 
heard  Prodicus  deliver  and  written  up  from  memory;  and  the  lecture  Jtsgl 
6vo|xdT(ov  OQ^OTTiTog  (Plato,  Euthyd.  277E;  Crat.  384B;  cf.  Welcker,  p.  452) 
which,  according  to  Zeller,  even  judging  from  Plato's  caricature  of  it,  must 
have  been  preserved  after  the  writer's  death.  The  treatise  on  the  mitigation 
of  the  fear  of  death,  which  is  imitated  in  the  Pseudo-Platonic  Axiochus 
366B;  369C)  and  the  discussion  of  the  value  and  use  of  wealth  (Eryxias 
395E;  396E;  379C-D)  probably  belonged  to  the  same  class,  as  might  be  the 
case  also  with  the  panegyric  on  Agriculture  implied  in  Themistius  Or.  XXX, 
349B. 

It  is  asserted  that  Hippias  (see  Mahly,  Hippias  von  Elis,  Rhein.  Mus. 
N.  F.  XV,  514-535;  XVI,  38-49)'  usually  delivered  lectures  in  the  temple  pre- 
cincts at  the  Olympic  games  (Plato,  Hipp.  Min.  363C,  emfiEfiEixxai  and  elg 
Em68i|iv)  and  answered  any  questions  that  were  asked  him  (cf.  also  Protag. 
315B;  317D).  Epideictic  speeches  by  him  at  Athens  are  also  mentioned 
{Hipp.  Mai.  286B ;  Hipp.  Min.  363A;  cf.  also  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  11). 

His  lecture  on  Homer  is  mentioned  in  the  Lesser  Hippias  (363A),  and 
elsewhere  in  the  same  dialogue  (368B  ff.)  the  sophist  boasts  of  lectures  in 
prose,  epics,  tragedies,  etc.  (Cf.  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  11;  Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill, 
32,  127;  Apul.  Flor.  32;  Themistius,  Or.  XXIX,  345C).  His  lecture  which 
contained  advice  to  a  young  man,  (Nestor  to  Neoptolemus,  Hipp.  Mai.  286A)' 
was  probably  distinct  from  his  lecture  on  Homer. 

Socrates  {Hipp.  Min.  363B)  says:  eoxi  7'  a  fiSECog  av  Jtvdoijx'nv  'Ijtmou 
&v  vvv  8t)  eXeye  JtEQi  'GjATiQOv.  If,  as  Liddell  and  Scott  assert,  Xeyeiv  never 
means  to  read  but  always  to  recite  (cf.  p.  38,  n.  147),  then  Hippias'  Homer 
lecture  was  memorized  and  recited. 

"*On  Gorgias  see  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,  44-72;  Navarre,  p.  79  ff. ;  Spengel, 
Art.  Script  63-84;  Jebb,  I,  cxxiii-cxxviii ;  Cope  {Camb.  Journ.  Class,  and 
Sacr.  Phil.  HI,  65-80). 

"^^  Cicero,  Brut.  c.  VIII,  30. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS    99 

school.  He  was  the  inheritor  of  the  teaching  of  Corax  and  Tisias, 
and  was  '*in  oratical  ability  the  foremost  man  of  his  time."  ^^^  He, 
too,  prepared  discussions  on  general  topics  like  those  of  Prota- 
goras/^* and  seems  to  have  been  the  first  rhetorician  who  made  a 
practice  of  giving  what  Navarre  calls  "les  seances  d'improvisa- 
tion."  ^^^  We  are  told  that  he  was  the  first  to  signify  his  willingness 
to  speak  on  any  subject  his  audience  might  be  pleased  to  suggest/-® 
a  practice  which  he  continued  even  in  extreme  old  age/^'^    Never- 

"'Diodor.  Sic.  XII,  53,  Of  Gorgias'  own  rhetorical  training  we  know 
little.  Tradition  makes  him  the  pupil  of  Tisias  (Rhet.  Gr.  IV,  p.  14  Walz) 
and  of  Empedocles  (Diog.  Laert.  VIII,  58;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  8;  Schol.  ad  Plat. 
Gorg.  465D;  Suidas  s.  v.  Gorgias;  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI).  In  Plato  (Meno  76C) 
they  are  shown  to  be  advocates  of  the  same  doctrines  (cf.  also  Theoph.  Fr. 
3;  de  Igne  y^t)-  Blass  rejects  the  tradition  because  of  the  slight  diflference 
in  age  between  the  two  men;  see  Diels,  Gorgias  und  Empedocles  {Bericht.  der 
Berlin  Akademie,  1884,  p.  343  ff.).  According  to  Pausanias  (VI,  17,  8)'  Gorgias 
was  the  pupil  of  Tisias  (cf.  Schol.  ad  Hermog.  Oratt.  Gr.  VIII,  191,  ed. 
Reisk),  who  accompanied  him  to  Athens  on  his  embassy  and  contended  with 
him  for  the  palm  of  eloquence  (Diod.  Sic.  XII,  53;  Olympiod.  in  Gorg.  p.  3; 
also  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Lys.  3;  Plut.  de  genio  Socrat.  c.  13;  Plato,  Hipp.  Mai. 
282B).  Thucydides  (III,  86)  in  describing  the  embassy,  does  not  mention 
Gorgias. 

^Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  46-47;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  12.  There  may  be  a  possible 
reference  to  this  in  Isocrates,  IV,  8;  cf.  also  Plato,  Phaedr.  267 A. 

E.  Scheel,  De  Gorgianae  Disciplinae  Vestigiis  (Rostock,  1890),  endeavors 
to  reconstruct  Gorgias'  method  of  training  from  the  works  of  Gorgias  and 
the  orations  of  Isocrates.  He  translates  xe/vai  in  Gorgias'  teaching  by 
"exempla,"  commonplaces. 

^P.  37. 

^  Philostr.    Proem,    ad    Vit.    Soph.    4    (483)  : axsbiov    8e 

'K6yov  Fogyiat;  ag^ai  (jtaQEXdwv  vao  ovxog  £5  x6  'Adrivaicov  deaxQOv  eddg- 
QTiOEv  e'lJieiv  "Tcgo^aXXexe"  xal  x6  xivSiWevjxa  xovxo  JtQcaxog  dvEq)^8Y|axo, 
ev8eixvijm,£V05  SiiJtou  xcdvxa  |xev  ElfiEvai,    jieqI    Jiavxog    8'dv    eIjieiv    Ecpislg    x(p 

xaiQCp Also   Philostr.   Vit.  Soph.  1,  9,  2;   Cicero,  de  Fin.   II, 

I,  I ;  de  Or.  I,  22,  103,  where  Crassus  ridicules  the  men  who  make  such 
claims  in  his  own  day;  III,  32,  129;  Val.  Max.  VIII,  15,  ext.  i,  2;  Plato, 
Gorg.  447C-D:  xal  yag  avxcp  ev  xoOx'  fjv  xfig  £;ti8Ei|Ecog  exeA-eve  yovv  vvv 
8ti  eqcoxqIv  6  xi  xig  PovXoixo  xwv  £v8ov  ovxcov  xai  Kgbg  djtavxa  Ucpt]  djto- 
xQivEiadai.  The  answering  of  questions  gave  him  an  opportunity  for  a 
"display".  After  the  display,  Gorgias,  like  the  modern  extension  lecturer, 
will  answer  questions.  Cf.  Plato,  Hipp.  Mai.  286A,  where  Hippias  tells 
Socrates  of  the  fine  speech  he  has,  written  with  great  care,  which  he  is  to 
"exhibit"  in  three  days   (EJii8£ixvvvai). 

This  is  Sarcey's  definition  of  a  lecturer:  "A  man  capable  of  improvising, 
on  no  matter  what  subject,  before  any  audience,  a  development  of  any  theme 


lOO  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

theless,  to  natural  gifts  must  be  added  painstaking  study  and  in- 
cessant practice.  Even  a  naturally  clever  man  cannot  become  a 
master  of  style  without  practice,  and  it  doubtless  took  the  rhetor- 
ician who  has  been  called  '1e  Balzac  de  la  prose  attique"  ^^^  many  a 
weary  hour  to  bring  the  Gorgian  style  to  perfection.  If,  in  addition, 
this  master  of  style  had  his  memory  stored  with  prepared  passages, 
and  had  written  panegyrics  and  invectives  on  every  subject,^^^  he 
could  not  be  at  a  loss  for  materials  for  a  speech  at  a  moment's  notice. 
There  are  few  subjects  which  his  audience  could  propose  to  him 
which  he  could  not  turn  to  a  discussion  of  generalities  and  so  bring 
in  his  prepared  topics.^^^  Thus  the  extemporary  speech  would  be 
only  partly  extemporary,  and  in  reality  would  be  largely  the  result 
of  study  and  preparation,  and  even  memorization.  Of  course  in 
Gorgias'  case  and  in  that  of  some  of  the  other  sophists  there  was, 
to  start  with,  some  natural  aptitude  for  extemporary  speaking,  but 


whatever"  (Recollections  of  Middle  Life  p.  147).  This  ability  will  never 
come,  according  to  Sarcey,  if  one  reads  his  lectures,  or  recites  lectures  learned 
by  heart.  If  one  does  so,  he  will  be  no  further  along  at  the  end  of  ten  years 
than  on  the  same  day;  but  see  the  French  lecturer's  method  of  preparation 
(p.  31,  n.  121).  Every  lecture  must  be  improvised,  he  says  (p.  160)  ;  but,  he 
adds,  one  does  not  improvise  successfully  before  the  public  until  he  has 
twenty  times  improvised  in  solitude ;  cf.  also  p.  163. 

"^  Quint.  II,  21,  21;  XII,  II,  21;  also  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI ;  Aelian,  Var.  Hist. 
I,  23.  Polus  and  Meno  made  similar  claims  (Plato,  Gorg.  461 D;  Men.  70B), 
but  the  "improvisateur  par  excellence"  seems  to  have  been  Hippias  (Plato, 
Hipp.  Min.  363C;  364A;  also  Protag.  315C;  compare  Apul.  Flor.  IX),  yet  even 
he,  after  experiencing  some  of  Socrates'  dialectic,  needs  a  little  time  for 
thought  before  improvising  an  answer  {Hipp.  Mai.  295A;  297E).  For  a 
general  account  of  Hippias  see  Apelt,  O. :  Beitrdge  zur  Gesch.  d.  Griech. 
Philos.  (Leipzig,  1891)  369-393. 

^Navarre,  p.  119. 

"'  Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  47.  Cf.  Plato,  Menex.  235D,  where  Socrates  says 
it  is  not  hard  to  extemporize  panegyrics,  at  least  in  the  presence  of  the  per- 
sons praised;  cf.  also  Arist.  Rhet.  Ill,  17,  11, 

^°  So  Sarcey  (p.  115)'  says  of  Henry  de  Lapommeraye :  "He  was  ready 
upon  every  subject,  and  treated  commonplaces  with  extraordinary  abundance 
of  improvisation." 

On  the  sophists'  evasion  of  uncomfortable  discussions,  and  their  methods 
toward  their  opponents,  see  Zeller,  p.  463  ff.,  who  illustrates  his  points  from 
the  Platonic  dialogues. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  ik  :^RACtlcfe  OfdRk'rdk^'     lOI 

even  granting  that,  their  ability  would  still  be  largely  the  result  of 
training  in  which  writing  played  a  large  part.^^^ 

Three  great  speeches  are  assigned  to  Gorgias,  the  Olympiacus, 
the  Epitaphius  and  the  Pythdus.  Few  if  any  scholars  would  argue 
that  these  were  extemporary.  The  Gorgian  figures  point  to  an 
elaborately  perfected  style.  Philostratus  tells  us  that  Gorgias  de- 
livered his  oration  against  the  barbarians  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembled  Greeks  at  the  Olympic  games. ^^^  His  Epitaphius  was  de- 
livered by  him  personally  at  Athens  and  ''was  composed  with  the 
highest  art."  ^^^  Philostratus  also  speaks  of  the  Pythian  oration  as 
having  been  delivered  by  Gorgias,  and  adds  that  on  the  altar  or 
pedestal  from  which  he  spoke,  a  golden  statue  of  the  orator  was  set 
up.i^* 

"^The  characteristic  Gorgian  style  could  hardly  be  extemporary,  or  if  by 
any  chance  it  could  be  so  used,  the  feat  would  be  like  that  of  the  Italian 
improvisatori. 

^  Philost.  Ep.  73  (13),  2  (887),  the  verb  used  is  SieXex^,  not  avxoaxebida^ 
which  Philostratus  probably  would  have  used  had  the  speech  been  extem- 
porary, since  he  seems  fond  of  using  the  word.  Elsewhere  (Vit.  Soph.  1,9,2) 
he  has  the  following  statement :  6  8'  'OXvfxmxog  "koyot;  vkeq  tov  \ieyiGxov 
avx(^  EKoXiTEv&r).  The  verb  in  the  Latin  version  is  rendered  by  "composita 
est"  and  cannot  be  taken  to  imply  actual  delivery  by  Gorgias  himself.  Ac- 
cording to  Plutarch,  however,  Gorgias  actually  read  the  speech  {Conj.  Praec. 
c.  43);  cf.  Pausan.  VI,  17;  also  Hieronymus,  quoted  by  Wyttenbach  on 
Plutarch,  144B;  compare  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI,  p.  173  (ed.  Flach)  ;  Quint.  Ill,  8, 
9.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  14,  quotes  from  the  speech. 

^  Philost.    Vit.    Soph.    I,    9»    3 ; aoqpiQi    8'    v:xEQtak'kovGX^ 

%vyy.zixai,  also  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI.  Blass,  I,  (2nd.  ed.)  p.  64  ff.  studies  the  ex- 
tant fragment  of  the  Epitaphius  {Rhet.  Gr.  V,  548  Walz)'  in  great  detail. 

^^Vit.  Soph.  I,  9,  2;  Cf.  Eud.  Aug.  CCLI. 

Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  32,  129,  mentions  this  golden  statue,  but  Pausanias 
(X,  18,  7)  very  gravely  declares  that  the  statue  which  he  saw  on  his  visit 
to  the  shrine  was  only  "gilt."  Pliny  the  Elder  {N.  H.  zz,  4,  24)1  believes  it 
solid,  as  does  Dio  Chrysostom  {Or.  XXXVII,  p.  iisR).  According  to 
Athenaeus  (XI,  113)  who  quotes  Hermippus,  the  statue  was  set  up  by  Gorgias 
himself,  and  this  is  the  belief  of  Pliny  {N.  H.  33,  4,  24)  ;  cf.  also  Pausan.  X, 
18,  7.  Valerius  Maximus  (VIII,  15,  ext.  i,  2)  says  that  a  statue  of  solid 
gold  was  erected  by  the  whole  of  Greece  in  honor  of  Gorgias;  cf.  Philostr. 
p.  493.  Pausanias  (VI,  17,  7-8)  mentions  a  statue  at  Olympia,  set  up  by  the 
descendants  of  Gorgias'  brother  and  sister. 

The  Encomium  of  Helen  and  the  Defense  of  Palamedes,  ascribed  to 
Gorgias  are  probably  spurious.  All  early  critics  seem  to  ignore  them.  Blass 
(1)1  at  first  rejects  them,  but  later  (II,  222)  accepts  the  Encomium  as  genu- 


J'^'^^  W 

.,..'''  ^^P 


I02  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

The  earliest  of  the  Athenian  orators  who  left  writings  was 
Antiphon,  and  it  is  with  him  that  the  history  of  Attic  oratory  be- 
gins.^^®    He  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  to  write  out  a  forensic 

speech   for  publication: irpwTOV   Si^avt7,6v   Xoyov   si? 

IxSoatv  YpatJ^apisvov  'AvitcpcovTOc  (puXou  'Pa^JLVouciov.  o)?  <pY]ai  AtoSopo?.^^® 
Quintilian  says  "Antiphon  quoque  et  orationem  primus  omnium 
scripsit,"^^^  doubtless  meaning  no  more  than  that  Antiphon  was  the 
first  orator  who  left  behind  him  an  authentic  speech.  He  was,  in 
fact,  the  first  orator  who  put  his  speeches  into  shape  with  a  view  to 
their  general  circulation.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  regard 
speeches  written  for  others  from  a  literary  point  of  view.^^^  The 
speeches  he  wrote  were  to  be  worthy  of  preservation,  not  merely 
pleas  whose  sole  object  was  to  accomplish  their  immediate  purpose 
in  the  court-room. 

We  are  told  that  Antiphon,  who  was  evidently  a  celebrated 
teacher  of  rhetoric,^^^  was  the  first  to  write  speeches  for  others  to 

ine,  believing  that  it  was  in  reply  to  this  that  Isocrates  wrote  his  Helen. 
Schonborn,  De  authentia  dechmationum  Gorg.  (Bresl.  1826)  defends  both; 
Foss  {De  Gorg.  Leon.  78  ff.)'  and  Spengel,  p.  71  ff.,  reject  both,  as  do  Stein- 
hart  {PI.  Werke,  II,  509,  18)  and  Jahn  (Palamedes,  Hamb.  1836).  Geel 
(Hist.  Grit.  Soph.  p.  31  if.,  p.  48  ff.)  believes  the  Palamedes  genuine  and  the 
Helen  spurious.  Cf.  Siiss,  Ethos,  pp.  49-59. 

"*Jebb.  I,  p.  cvi.  On  Antiphon  see  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,  79-195;  Jebb,  I, 
1-70;  Parrot,  £.loq.  polit.  et  judic.  pp.  96-153- 

""Diodorus  ap.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  I,  365;  cf.  Blass,  III,  B,  324.  The 
statement  of  Suidas  (see  n.  54)  that  Pericles  was  the  first  to  write  out  a 
forensic  speech  before  he  delivered  it,  does  not  conflict  with  this  passage. 
Pericles  did  not  publish  his  speech;  Antiphon  was  the  first  to  write  out  a 
forensic  speech  for  publication  (elg  exfioaiv). 

^''III,  I,  II.  Suidas  s.  v.  Mox^Qog  calls  him 6  jiaXaioxaxoe 

Tcov  'qtitoqcov. 

"*Cf.  Navarre,  p.  13. 

""  Plato,  Menex.  236A.  Thucydides  is  said  to  have  been  his  pupil : 
Suidas,  s.  v.  Thucyd.  and  Antiphon;  Eud.  Aug.  CVIII;  Ps.-Plut.  259; 
Hermog.  de  Form.  II  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  414,  19  Sp.)  ;  Aristides,  p.  131  Dind. ; 
Themistius,  Or.  XXVI,  p.  329;  Dion.  Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  10;  Schol.  Thucyd. 
IV,  135,  and  VIII,  68;  Marcellinus,  Vit.  Thucyd.  p.  25;  Trypho  {Rhet.  Gr, 
III,  201,  8  Sp.)  ;  Vita  Antiphontis.  For  striking  rhetorical  coincidences  be- 
tween the  two  see  Mure,  Hist.  Gr.  Lit.  V,  Appendix  G,  No.  11,  and  Neischke, 
A.;  De  Thucydide  Antiphontis  discipulo  (Miinden,  1885)';  Lehmann,  J.: 
Thucydidis  oratio  Antiphontis  dictione  comparat.   (1876). 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   IO3 

deliver  in  court;  there  was,  at  least,  no  such  speech  in  circulation 
by  any  writer  before  his  time:  Y.(xi  Tiva?  Xofou?  zolq  8eopt.svo5(;  twv 
xo>.tT(OV  auveypatpsv  elq  tou?  ev  zoiq  liY.o^uiripmq  a^wva?,  TupwTO?  eiui 
TOUTO  TpaTCet(;,  waxep  Ttve?  ^aatv.  t(j>v  fouv  ^*"  wpo  auxou  ysvo^JLevtov 
ouSevo?  (pepsTat  S{)tavi/,0(;  Xoyo?,  aXX'  ou5s  to)V  y-ax'  auiov  .  .  . 
.  }^^  It  is  hardly  possible  that  there  were  no  speeches  written 
for  clients  before  Antiphon's  time.  The  explanation  of  the  passage 
no  doubt  is  that  his  speeches  were  the  first  published,  and  since  no 
speech  of  an  earlier  date  was  in  existence,  some  critics  (tcvs?  ^aat) 
attributed  to  Antiphon  the  origin  of  the  practice.  He  is  described, 
perhaps  correctly,  as  the  first  who  ever  made  a  practice  of  selling 
speeches. ^^- 

Antiphon  was  primarily  a  writer  rather  than  a  maker  of  speeches, 
and  so  closely  did  he  adhere  to  his  vocation  that  he  never  addressed 
the  people  himself  until  he  made  his  own  defense  in  the  trial  which 
resulted  in  his  condemnation  and  death. 

That  he  was  the  leading  man  of  his  time  so  far  as  speech-making 
is  concerned,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  assisted  not  individuals 
only,  but  even  wrote  speeches  for  the  allied  cities  in  disputes  about 
the  tribute.''*^ 

He  himself  took  little  part  openly  in  public  life ;  his  role  in  poli- 
tics was  played  from  behind  the  scenes.  Thucydides,  in  speaking  of 
the  aflfair  of  Pisander,  says:  ''The  person  who  devised  the  whole 
matter was  Antiphon,  a  man  second  to  none  of  the 

^*"The  YoOv  shows  that  such  was  the  author's  belief. 

"^  Ps.-Plut.  Vit.  X  Oratt.  832.  Cf.  also  the  ysvo?  'AvTiq)cbvTos  4 :  .  .  . 
.  .  H'nS'  ^v  71(6  T15  TOTE  jxriTE  XoyoDV  \iy\Te  texvcov  'qt)toqix(ov  ODYYQCicpevs. 
Auctor  Proleg.  in  Hermog. :  Xiyovoi  be  tive?  Sixavixov  Xoyov  evgriHevat 
(Cod.  elgyijcevai)  jtqwtov  Meveadea  tov  OTgaTTivov  t6)v  'A^vaitov  og  xal 
em  Tgoiav  dcpixsTO,  oKTioi  be  "Kiyovoi  'AvTicpoovTa. 

^*^For  this  he  was  attacked  by  Plato  the  comic  poet:  Meineke,  I,  180; 
Kock,  I,  103;  Plut.  Mor.  833C;  Phot.  Cod.  259;  Ps.-Plut.  Vit.  Antiph.  17; 
Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  15,  2 ;  Eud.  Aug.  CVIII ;  Ammianus  Marcell.  XXX,  4, 
5;  Diodorus  ap.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1,  365. 

^*^  Harpocration  mentions  two  of  these :  jieqI  xov  AivSicov  (poQOu  (Harpocr. 
s.  V.  'AfitpiJtoXig,  ojieuieiv,  aTTa,  81'  eviavToi),  EKayyeXia,  ejiiaxojiog,  ngoacpOQa, 
av\r\yoQoi,  ToiPooveuopievoi),  and  keqI  tov  Saixo^gdxoov  cpogov  (Harpocr. 
s.  V.  ExXoyeig,  dsi,  aKobib6\i£voi,  djtoTalig,  ovvTeX-Eig).  The  latter  is  referred 
to  by  Suidas  (s.  v.  HajioiS^QQi'xTi ) ,  Priscian  (18,  280),  and  Blass  believes 
by  Demetrius,  (de  Elocut.  53)',  where  the  name  of  the  speech  is  not  men- 
tioned. 


I04  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Athenians  of  his  day  in  ability,  and  who  had  proved  himself  most 
capable  to  devise  measures  and  to  express  his  views ;  and  although 
"he  did  not  come  forward  to  speak  in  the  assembly  of  the  people,  nor, 
of  his  own  will,  into  any  other  debate,  but  was  regarded  with  sus- 
picion by  the  people  owing  to  his  reputation  for  cleverness,  yet  was 
most  able,  for  any  one  man,  to  aid  those  who  were  engaged  in  a 
contest,"  both  in  the  law-court  and  before  the  assembly  of  the  people, 
whoever  of  them  might  ask  his  advice  on  any  point."^** 

Only  once  did  he  appear  as  pleader  before  a  court,  when,  after  the 
downfall  of  the  Four  Hundred,  he  was  tried  for  his  Hf e  on  the  charge 
of  having  been  a  party  to  the  establishment  of  the  oligarchy.  Of 
the  speech  he  made  in  his  own  defense,  the  xept  ty;?  [isxajTaasto^,^*'^ 

Thucydides  says:  "he appears  to  me  to  have  made 

the  best  defense  of  all  men  up  to  my  time,  when  he  was  brought  to 
trial  for  his  life  in  regard  to  this  very  matter,  on  the  charge  of  hav- 
ing assisted  in  setting  up  the  oligarchy."^*^ 

Aristotle  tells  us  that  Agathon,  the  tragic  poet,  praised  the  speech, 
and  that  Antiphon,  who  had  just  been  condemned  to  death,  replied 
that  a  self-respecting  man  will  care  more  for  the  opinion  of  one  per- 
son who  is  competent  to  judge,  than  for  that  of  many  whose  opinion 
is  worthless.^*^ 

^**Thucyd.  VIII,  68.  No  doubt  it  was  forensic  speeches  which  Antiphon 
was  most  often  called  upon  to  write  for  his  clients,  yet  the  statement  of 
Thucydides  xoug  pievxoi  etc.,  seems  to  imply,  as  Jebb  (Att.  Or.  I,  3-4)'  points 
out,  that  he  was  versed  in  deliberative  as  well  as  forensic  oratory.  Cf.  also 
Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  15,  6. 

Antiphon  may  very  possibly  have  been  concerned  in  helping  the  speakers 
who  came  forward  at  the  time  of  the  Pisander  episode  prepare  their  speeches 
(Thucyd.  VIII,  66).  We  are  told  that  the  points  to  be  brought  forward  by 
the  speakers  were  previously  discussed  (jiqcijoxejitg). 

"^  Harpocr.  s.  v.  oxaaicoxTi?  (cf.  also  Suidas)'  8iaaxfiaai,  8jxJto8o')v  (cf. 
Etym.  M.  p.  336,  35),  EJieaxri'ipaxo  (cf.  Etym.  M.  p.  355,  36)  'HexicovEia, 
xexQaxomoi.  Blass  would  refer  the  two  fragments  quoted  by  Suidas  (I,  2,  p. 
977,  and  II,  2,  p.  1073,  i6)i  to  the  same  speech;  cf.  Sauppe,  Or.  Att.  II,  p.  138. 

**»  Thucyd.  VIII,  68.    Cf.  Quint.  Ill,  i,  11: "pro  se  dixisse 

optime  est  creditus;"  and  Cicero,  Brut.  XII,  47:  "(Antiphon) 

quo  neminem  umquam  melius  ullam  oravisse  capitis  causam,  cum  se  ipse 
defenderet,   (se  audiente)   locuples  auctor  scripsit  Thucydides." 

""^  Aristot.  Eud.  Eth.  Ill,  5.  One  other  production  which  bears  his  name 
may  have  concerned  Antiphon  personally.  This  is  the  'AA,>ti(5id8ou  XoiSoQim. 
Plutarch    (Alcib.   192F)    quotes  a  story  about  Alcibiades  on  this   authority 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   IO5 

There  are  various  accounts  of  his  rhetorical  training.  The 
Pseudo-Plutarch  gives  two  accounts  :^*^  {jLaOYjTSuaa*;  Be  tw  xaTpt  (fy 
yap  aoq/taTiQ^j  '(p  /.ai  'AX7,tPtaSY]v  tpaatv  exi  xatBa  ovxa  (potiYJaat)  %at 
Suvapicv  X6y<j)v  7.TY]cra(JLSV0?,  <y]>  w^  tcvs?  vopitJ^ouatv,  dx'  ot^^sca? 
(puffsfc)?.  The  latter  of  these  is  the  view  held  by  the  author  of  the 
Yevog  'AvTtcpwvTOi;  who  explicitly  says  that  he  had  no  teacher,  and 
adds  that  to  his  natural  cleverness  Antiphon  added  the  drill  of 
practice/*^  As  Spengel  puts  it,  he  was  "multa  doctus  exercita- 
tione"/^^ 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Antiphon  ever  made  an  extemporary 
speech/^^  Owing  to  his  policy  of  keeping  in  the  background  in 
political  matters,  and  the  fact  that  the  people  regarded  him  with 
suspicion  because  of  his  cleverness  in  speaking,^^^  he  did  not  appear 
in  public  except  in  the  trial  in  his  own  defense,  and  on  that  occasion 
it  would  certainly  be  very  unlikely  that  he  would  trust  to  an  extem- 
porary speech,  when  his  own  life  depended  on  the  result  of  the  trial. 

Andocides,^^^  though  an  interesting  figure  with  reference  to  the 
history  of  Athens,  is  of  little  importance  so  far  as  the  present  in- 

(ev  8e  xaig  'AvxKpcovxog  Xoi8oQiaig)  and  adds  that  too  much  weight  must 
not  be  given  to  it  on  account  of  Antiphon's  open  enmity  towards  Alcibiades. 
This  might  have  been  a  political  attack  on  Alcibiades,  published  by  Antiphon 
in  pamphlet  form.  Jebb  (I,  p.  5)  points  out  that  Athenaeus  (XII,  5256) 
quotes  a  statement  made  by  Antiphon  ev  xw  y.ax' ' AXy.i^iabr]\  Xoi8oQia?.  From 
this  Jebb  would  suppose  that  the  work  was  a  speech  in  a  Sixt]  xaxTiyoQiag  (of. 
Dem.  Conon  18)  for  which  he  says  Xoibogia  was  used  as  a  convertible  term; 
cf.  Aristoph.  Vesp.  1207,  elXov  8i(6xo)v  XoiboQiai^.  In  that  case  the  speech  may 
have  been  delivered  by  some  one  of  Antiphon's  clients.  Sauppe,  O.  A.,  be- 
lieves Athenaeus  made  a  mistake  and  that  Plutarch  is  correct.  Cf.  Blass, 
Att.  Bereds.  p.  95. 

'**  Vit.  Antiph.  2;  Eud.  Aug.  CVIII;  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  15,  2:  yevEodai 
t'  avxov  ol  |LiEv  aiJxofia^cog  aoqpov,  ol  8'  ex  jtaxQog. 

"« sec.  4. 

^'Art.  Script,  p.  116. 

"^The  JtEQi  xfjg  jLiExaoxdaEcog  is  spoken  of  by  Pseudo-Plutarch  (sec. 
20)  as  the  speech  vjieq  Eauxoi)  VEYQatpE.  It  was,  then,  prepared  before  de- 
livery, since  there  is  not  much  possibility  of  its  having  been  reduced  to  writing 
afterwards.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  from  the  Aristotle  passage  (n.  147) 
whether  Agathon  had  read  the  speech  or  heard  it  delivered. 

"^  Thucyd.    VIII,    68,    i vjtojtxcog    xcp    JiX-iidEt    8ia    86iav 

8£iv6xTixog  8iax£ipiEvog 

^On  Andocides  see  Blass,  I,  268-331;  Jebb,  I,  71-141 ;  Lipsius,  J.  H. : 
de  Andocidis  Vita  et  Scriptis. 


I06  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

vestigation  is  concerned.  He  owes  his  reputation  chiefly  to  his 
historical  interest  in  connection  with  the  affair  of  the  Hermae,  and 
the  violation  of  the  Mysteries.  We  know  nothing  of  his  rhetorical 
training,  although  he  may  have  profited  by  the  instructions  of  Anti- 
phon,  who  was  at  the  time  the  chief  teacher  of  rhetoric.  Andocides 
was  not  a  professional  rhetorician.  His  speeches  were  more  in  the 
nature  of  pamphlets  or  essays  written  in  vindication  of  his  own 
policy  or  character.^^*  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  made  an 
extemporary  speech.  Of  the  four  extant  orations  ascribed  to 
him,^^^  de  Mysteriis,  de  Reditu,^'^^  de  Pace,^^''  contra  Alcibiadem,'^^^ 
there  is  no  probability  that  any  were  extemporary  on  an  occasion, 
and  reduced  to  writing  afterwards. ^^^ 

^  Cf.  Harpocration,  'Oq  'qcdSeiv. 

""  Photius,  Cod.  CCLXI. 

^Cf.  Harpocration,  'Oo'qcoSeiv. 

"^According  to  the  author  of  the  argument  (Auctor  Arg.  fin.)  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  believed  that  the  speech  On  the  Peace  was  spurious.  Har- 
pocration also  doubts  its  authenticity.  He  quotes  it  three  times,  but  always 
with  the  addition  eI  yvriaiog.  This  view  is  now  rejected  by  nearly  all  scholars. 
Blass  (cf.  his  edition  of  Andocides)'  thinks  that  the  exile  Andocides  wrote 
the  oration  for  his  own  justification,  Jebb  (p.  82)  believes  it  was  actually 
delivered.  He  calls  it  Andocides'  "only  recorded  utterance  on  a  public 
question."  Taylor  (Lectiones  Lysiacae  c.  VI,  Vol.  H,  p.  260,  ed.  Reiske)  and 
Markland  (acd  JEsch.  de  Pals.  Legat.  p.  302)  take  the  same  view  as  Dionysius. 
Ruhnken  {Hist.  Crit.  Gr.  Orat.  in  his  Opuscula  Vol.  I,  325)  and  Blass  {Att. 
Bereds.  I,  332)  defend  the  speech  as  authentic.  Cf.  also  Croiset,  IV,  430. 

^  The  speech  against  Alcibiades,  perhaps  spoken  in  the  person  of  Phaeax 
(cf.  Plut.  Alcih.  193E);  is  undoubtedly  spurious.  Harpocration,  the  Pseudo- 
Plutarch,  and  Photius  attribute  it  to  Andocides,  but  Blass  {Att.  Bereds.  I, 
336  ff.)'  rightly  rejects  their  view.  Taylor  {Lectiones  Lysiacae  c.  VI)  follow- 
ing Plutarch  {Alcih.  196)  assigns  the  speech  to  Phaeax,  who  shared  with 
Alcibiades  in  the  danger  of  ostracism.  He  believes  that  it  was  read  by 
Plutarch  as  the  oration  of  Phaeax  in  the  actual  contest  between  Phaeax, 
Nicias  and  Alcibiades.  His  view  is  opposed  by  Ruhnken  {Hist.  Crit.  Gr. 
Orat.  XLVII  ff.)  and  Valckner.  For  another  view  see  Grote,  Gr.  Hist.  IV, 
151,  n.  I.  According  to  Meier,  de  Andocidis  quae  vulgo  fertur  oratione  in 
Alcihiadem,  the  speech  is  an  imitation  by  some  later  rhetorician.  This  is 
shown  by  the  utter  ignorance  of  history  and  the  polished  style.  This  is  the 
view  held  by  Jebb,  I,  131,  who  points  out  that  sections  10-40  are  a  mere 
stringing  together  of  all  the  stories  about  Alcibiades,  and  that  the  speech  has 
the  unmistakable  air  of  a  compilation. 

The  Jtgo?  xovg  ExaiQOvg,  which  Plutarch  mentions  in  his  Life  of  Themis- 
tocles  (c.  32,  128C)  is  believed  by  Ruhnken  (p.  LII)'  and  Sauppe  to  have 
been  a  letter  written  to  the  allies  of  Pisander,  who  were  called  Exaigoi. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   IO7 

There  was  little  opportunity  for  Lysias  ^®°  to  display  skill  as  an 
orator  in  person.  In  station  he  was  a  metic,  and  so  debarred  from 
public  business,  and  by  profession  he  was  a  writer  of  speeches  for 
others.^^^ 

Very  little  is  known  of  his  rhetorical  training.^^^  We  are  told 
that  in  Sicily  he  was  the  pupil  of  Tisias.^^^  Cicero,  on  the  authority 
of  Aristotle,  tells  us  that  Lysias  was  the  first  "to  profess  the  art 
of  speaking,"  and  that  he  kept  a  school  of  rhetoric,  but  finding  him- 
self outdone  as  a  theorist  by  Theodorus,  although  his  superior  in  the 
practice  of  the  art,  he  abandoned  teaching,  and  took  up  speech- 
writing.^^*    The  story,  however,  is  hardly  probable.    The  fact  that 

^"^  Cf .  p.  139  ff.  The  repetition  of  such  passages  would  make  it  impossible 
to  hold  the  view  that  the  speeches  containing  them  were  extemporary. 

'•^Cf.  Blass,  Att.  Bereds.  I,  331  ff ■ ;  Jebb,  I,  158-198. 

"^When  a  man  procured  a  speech  from  an  expert,  he  must  memorize 
it.  This  would  familiarize  the  Athenians  with  the  idea  of  a  completely 
memorized  speech. 

Antiphon  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  follow  the  profession  of  speech- 
writer  at  Athens  (Ps.-Plut.  832;  Philost.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  15,  2;  Amm.  Marcell. 
XXX,  4,  5;  Diod.  ap.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  I,  365),  but  after  his  time  the  cus- 
tom of  writing  and  selling  speeches  became  general.  The  men  who  practiced 
this  art,  as  a  rule  were  not  held  in  high  esteem,  and  were  classed  with  the 
sophists  (Plato,  Phaedr.  257C;  Euthyd.  272A;  289D ;  30SA;  Dem.  XIX,  246; 
250;  Anaxim.  Rhet.  XXXVI  (Rhet.  Gr.  I,  234-5  Sp.),  but  nevertheless  we 
find  that  orators  of  the  greatest  ability,  such  as  Antiphon,  Lysias,  Demos- 
thenes, Isaeus,  and  others,  did  not  hesitate  to  write  speeches  for  others  to 
deliver  (cf.  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Lys.  c.  i ;  Meier-Schomann,  Att.  Proc.  p.  7^)- 
Quintilian  (II,  15,  30)  says  it  was  a  general  practice  at  the  time  of  Socrates' 
trial  for  men  to  deliver  speeches  composed  for  them  by  others. 

^^^  Most  ancient  critics  say  little  about  Lysias  except  in  praise  of  his  style, 
and  his  ability  in  adapting  the  speech  to  the  speaker.  Aristotle  in  his 
Rhetoric  never  mentions  him  by  name,  although  he  quotes  once  (II,  23,  19) 
from  the  speech  On  the  Constitution  (XXXIV,  11),  of  which  Dionysius  re- 
marks {de  Lys.  c.  32)  :  el  fXEv  ouv  EQpri^  xoxe,  a8T]A,ov  ouYXEixai  yov\  wg 
KQOg  dvcova  EmxTidEitog.  Plato's  only  mention  of  Lysias  is  in  the  Phaedrus. 
Quintilian  mentions  his  style  in  several  places,  and  believes  that  the  art  of 
composition  was  studied  by  him  as  far  as  the  skill  of  the  ancients  then 
reached  (IX,  4,  16). 

^*®  Ps.-Plut.  835D;  Phot.  Cod.  262;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Lysias;  Eud.  Aug.  619. 

^'^  Brut.  XII,  48;  On  Theodorus  see  Blass,  I,  251  ff . ;  2nd.  ed.  259  ff. ;  Cope, 
III,  284  ff.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  II,  23,  speaks  of  a  xe/vti  of  his;  cf.  also  Soph. 
Elench.  c.  34;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isae.  c.  19;  Cicero,  Orat.  XII,  39;  Aristotle, 
Rhet.  Ill,  13,  5;  Plato,  Phaedr.  261 C;  266E. 


I08  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

all  his  known  forensic  speeches  were  composed  after  his  loss  of 
wealth  seems  to  show  that  Lysias  adopted  speech-writing  as  a  pro- 
fession because  of  his  misfortunes  under  the  rule  of  the  Thirty.^^' 
He  wrote  speeches  for  men  in  all  stations  of  life,  from  that  of  a 
knight,  to  that  of  an  object  of  public  charity.  Tradition  tells  us  that 
he  even  wrote  a  defense  for  Socrates,^^®  but  the  only  occasion  on 

^^  Cf .  Thompson's  Phaedrus  p.  xxvi. 

"*  There  seems  to  be  nothing  improbable  in  the  story  that  Lysias  com- 
posed a  defense  for  Socrates.  Lysias  was  the  foremost  speech-writer  of  his 
time,  a  friend  of  Socrates,  and  as  such  would  naturally  wish  to  aid  him. 
The  reason  given  by  Socrates  for  refusing  to  make  use  of  the  speech,  as 
given  by  Cicero  {de  Or.  I,  54,  231),  is  characteristic  of  him:  "sed,  inquit,  ut, 
si  mihi  cakeos  Sicyonios  attulisses,  non  uterer,  quamvis  essent  habiles  atque 
apti  ad  pedem,  quia  non  essent  viriles,  sic  illam  orationem  disertam  sibi  et 
oratoriam  videri,  fortem  et  virilem  non  videri."  According  to  Quintilian  (II, 
IS>  30>  with  Spalding's  note),  Socrates  declined  the  speech  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  "inhonestam  sibi;"  compare  Plato,  .Apol.  20B-C;  Quint,  XI,  i, 
11;  Ps.-Plut.  836B;  Diog.  Laert.  II,  40;  VI,  4,  2;  Val.  Max.  VI,  4,  ext.  2; 
Stob.  Flor.  VII,  56;  Photius,  Cod.  262;  Antiatt.  in  Bekker.  Anecd.  p.  115,  8; 
Schol.  ad  Plat.  Apol.  18B. 

This  tradition  is  usually  rejected  on  the  ground  that  it  is  based  on  a 
misunderstanding.  Diogenes  Laertius  (II,  5,  39)',  quoting  Hermippus,  says 
that  "Polycrates  the  sophist  wrote  the  speech  which  was  delivered  (i.  e. 
against  Socrates  at  his  trial),  not  Anytus,  as  others  say."  Quintilian  cautiously 
accepts  the  same  view  (II,  17,  4;  cf.  also  III,  i,  11).  That  this  is  not  true, 
however,  Diogenes  goes  on  to  show.  He  says :  "But  Favorinus,  in  the  first 
book  of  his  Commentaries,  says  that  the  speech  of  Polycrates  against  Socrates 
is  not  a  genuine  one ;  for  in  it  there  is  mention  made  of  the  restoration  of 
the  walls  by  Conon,  an  event  which  took  place  six  years  after  the  death  of 
Socrates."  This  accusation  of  Socrates  by  Polycrates  (also  mentioned  by 
Suidas  s.  v.  Polycrates;  Isocr.  Busir.  3,  and  5 ;  Auctor  argument.  Aelian,  Var. 
Hist.  XI,  10)  was,  according  to  Bentley  {de  Epist.  Socr.  6,  p.  51 ;  cf.  Jebb, 
I,  150)  published  later  than  392  B.  C.  In  reply  to  this  accusation  Lysias 
wrote  a  Defense  of  Socrates  (Schol.  ad  Aristid.  p.  113,  6,  vol.  Ill,  480  ed. 
Dind.,  quoted  by  Jebb,  I,  151). 

There  seems  to  be  no  necessity  for  identifying  the  two  speeches  of  Lysias. 
He  may  very  well  have  written  a  defense  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  which 
Socrates  declined  to  use,  and  then  later,  after  Polycrates'  attack,  have  written 
a  reply  to  that.  Cf.  Holscher,  L. :  Quaestunculae  Lysiacae  (Her ford,  1857) 
p.  4  ff.,  who  also  believes  that  the  'An:oXoYia  Scoxedxoue  was  distinct  from 
the  reply  to  Polycrates. 

Cf,  Grote,  Hist.  Or.  Vol.  IV,  171  (1862)  who  quotes  the  testimony  of 
Xenophon,  Mem.  IV,  4,  4,  that  Socrates  would  have  been  acquitted  if  he  had 
taken  a  less  lofty  tone  toward  the  dicasts.  Compare  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  I, 
29,  71 ;  Ovid,  Trist.  V,  12,  12. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   IO9 

which  he  came  into  direct  contact  with  Athenian  politics, ^^'^  was  his 
coming  forward  in  person  to  accuse  Eratosthenes/^®  the  murderer  of 
his  brother.  In  addition  to  this  speech,  there  are  only  two  others 
which  could,  by  any  possibility,  be  assigned  to  Lysias  for  personal 
delivery.    These  are  the  Epitaphius  ^^^  and  the  Olympiacus. 

The  Funeral  Oration  ascribed  to  Lysias  has  been  the  subject  of 
much  discussion.  The  Pseudo-Plutarch,^^^  Suidas,^^^  Eudocia 
Augusta  ^^^  and  Photius  tell  us  that  Lysias  was  the  author  of 
STUCTacptot,  but  do  not  mention  any  particular  one.  Among  ancient 
critics  Harpocration  and  Theon  ^"  assign  this  particular  one  to 
Lysias.  Aristotle  ^^*  quotes  a  passage  from  the  speech,^*^^  but  does 
not  mention  Lysias  as  the  author.^^^ 

There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  the  speech  we  possess  is 
spurious,  although  attempts  have  been  made  to  prove  it  a  genuine 
production  of  the  orator.^^^    If  the  speech  is  the  work  of  Lysias  it 

"'  References  are  also  made  to  a  production  of  Lysias  entitled  On  his 
own  Services.  This  may  have  been  delivered  as  a  speech  or  published  as  a 
pamphlet  at  the  time  of  the  proposal  of  Thrasybulus  that  full  citizenship  be 
conferred  upon  Lysias,  It  has  survived  only  in  a  few  words  quoted  in 
various  places.  Cf.  Harpocration,  s.  v.  Keioi,  fxexojtiJQYiov,  ^^yaxEvoi.  Ps.-Plut. 
836B ;  Blass,  I,  359. 

"^^We  know  from  his  own  words  that  this  was  his  first  appearance  in  a 

law   court:    eyo)   M-ev  0^ ovx'    eiiauTOv   Jicojioxe   ouxe    aXKoxQva 

jtodYJiaxa  Jigdla^.  {Contra  Erato s.  3)'.  This  statement,  of  course,  cannot 
be  taken  as  proof  that  Lysias  did  not  write  speeches  for  others  before  403, 
although  it  seems  likely  that  he  did  not.  Cf.  also  Cicero,  Brut.  IX,  35; 
Quint.  IX,  4,  17. 

^**  On  the  Funeral  Speeches  in  Greek  see  Buresch,  C. :  Consolationum 
a  Graecis  Romanisque  Scriptarum  Historia  Critica  {Leipzig er  Studien  IX 
[1887],  1-164)';  Holmes,  D.H.:  A  Study  of  the  Type  of  the  Greek  Epitaphios 
with  Special  Reference  to  the  Oration  in  Thucydides  (Kansas,  1896)  ; 
Burgess,  T.  C. :  Epideictic  Literature,  p.  146  ff.,  and  the  literature  there  cited. 

"°836B. 

*^s.  V.  Lysias. 

"^619. 

""^Rhet.  Gr.  II,  63,  31;  H,  68,  26,  Sp. 

'"^Rhet.  Ill,   ID,  7,  with  Cope's  note. 

""*  sec.  60. 

"®  Cf .  Dionys.  Hal.  Ars  Rhet.  c.  6,  who  mentions  an  Epitaphius  by 
Lysias. 

^"Dr.  Le  Beau  in  his  Lysias  Epitaphios  als  echt  erwiesen  (Stuttgart  1863) 
tries  to  prove  it  genuine ;  cf .  also  Girard,  J. :  Sur  Vauthenticite  de  I'Or.  fun. 
attribuee   a  Lysias    {Revue   Archeol.    1871,   pp.   373-389) ;    Thomaschke,    de 


no  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

cannot  have  been  delivered  by  him  in  person,  since,  as  Jebb  points 
out,^^^  Lysias  was  debarred  from  the  privilege  of  delivering  such  an 
oration  because  he  was  not  an  Athenian  citizen.  The  supposition 
that  another  man  was  chosen  speaker,  and  that  Lysias  composed  the 
speech  for  this  citizen  to  deliver,  is  very  unlikely.  Thucydides  ^^^ 
tells  us  that  the  citizen  chosen  by  the  state  to  deliver  such  a  speech 
was  "one  who  in  point  of  intellect  is  considered  talented,  and  in 
dignity  is  preeminent/'  one  who  would  surely  be  capable  of  writing 
his  own  speech.  Besides,  we  are  told  by  Plato  ^^°  that  such  speeches 
were  prepared  beforehand  by  the  orators  in  case  the  choice  of  the 
citizens  should  fall  upon  them. 

Le  Beau  ^^^  thinks  that  Lysias  wrote  the  speech  for  the  use  of 
the  Archon  Polemarchus,  and  that  he  delivered  it  at  the  annual 
gathering  held  in  honor  of  those  citizens  who  had  died  during  the 
past  year.  Eckert  ^^^  on  the  other  hand,  believes  that  the  custom 
mentioned  by  Le  Beau  did  not  exist  before  the  time  of  Alexander. 
He  shows,  moreover,  that  the  style  of  the  speech  is  extremely  un- 
like that  of  Lysias'  authentic  writings.^^^ 

Some  have  thought  the  speech  a  mere  scholastic  exercise,  never 
intended  for  actual  delivery,  written  by  some  unknown  rhetorician 
who  borrowed  largely  from  Isocrates.^^*  Against  this,  however, 
is  to  be  set  the  fact  that  Aristotle  quotes  from  the  speech  as  from 
a  well-known  epitaphius.^*^ 


L.  epitaphii  authentia  verisimili,  (Vrat.  1887).  The  opposite  view  is  main- 
tained by  Eckert,  H. :  De  Epitaphio  Lysiae  oratori  falso  tributo  (Berlin, 
1865) ;  also  Blass,  I,  431.  The  arguments  given  by  Eckert  seem  conclusive. 
Dobree  {Adv.  I,  p.  8)  calls  it  "non  modo  Lysia  sed  quovis  oratore  indig- 
nam." 

""I,  p.  203. 

"« II,  34,  6.   Cf.  Plato,  Menex.  234C. 

^^  Menexenus,  235D. 

"^P.  37  ff. 

"^'p.  6ff. 

"^pp.  19-43. 

***Jebb,  I,  205.  It  may  have  been  assigned  to  Lysias  by  some  later  critics 
to  account  for  the  statement  in  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  (836B),  Photius,  and 
Suidas  (cf,  Sauppe,  O.  A.  170)  that  Lysias  wrote  epitaphioi. 

"''Aristot.  Rhet.  Ill,  10,  7,  with  Cope's  note. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   III 

Grote/®^  following  some  German  critics/®^  believes  it  a  genu- 
ine work  of  Lysias,  although  perhaps  only  a  rhetorical  exercise, 
he  also  believes  that  the  funeral  oration  in  the  Menexenus  was  com- 
posed by  Plato  in  competition  with  it.  The  two  speeches  do  cover 
nearly  the  same  range  of  subjects,  but,  as  Jebb  points  out,^^^  these 
topics  were  the  "commonplaces  of  commemorative  oratory"  and 
there  is  no  need  to  assume  that  Plato  imitated  this  particular  one. 
The  speech,  on  its  own  evidence,  was  prepared. ^^^ 
The  Olympiacus  is  usually  regarded  as  the  fragment  of  a  genu- 
ine speech  actually  delivered  by  Lysias  in  person  at  the  Olympic 
festival  in  388  B.  C.,  when  Dionysius  of  Syracuse  sent  a  splendid 
embassy  to  contend  at  the  games. ^^^  Ancient  authorities  for  the 
belief  that  the  speech  was  actually  delivered  are  Dionysius  of  Hali- 
carnassus  ^^^  and  Diodorus.  The  latter  tells  us  ^^^  that  the  crowd 
at  the  games,  as  a  result  of  this  address,  plundered  Dionysius'  tents, 
hooted  at  his  poems,  and  ridiculed  his  ambassadors,  but  so  far  as 
we  can  judge,  this  was  the  only  result  obtained.  The  speech,  on  the 
evidence  of  Diodorus  and  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  was  prepared  be- 
forehand and  read.^^^ 

^^  Plato,  III,  408,  see  also  p.  404;  Hist.  Gr.  VI,  p.  191,  n.;  Holmes,  A 
Study  of  the  Type  of  the  Greek  Epitaphios,  221. 

"^  Stallbaum,  Proleg.  ad  Menex.  p.  10;  Westermann,  Gesch.  der  Bereds- 
amkeit,  sec.  66,  p.  134;  Schleiermacher,  Einleitung  to  his  translation  of  the 
Menexenus. 

^■^1,205. 

^^'secs.  1-3. 

'^Jebb,  I,  152;  Mahaffy,  II,  142.  Scheibe,  Jahrh.  f.  Phil.  XXXI,  373, 
doubts  its  authenticity.  The  title  is  found  in  Harpocration,  s.  v.  loviog. 
Theon,  Progym.  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  63,  31  Sp.)'  and  Hermogenes  (Rhet.  Gr.  II, 
420,  24  Sp.)  refer  to  it.  The  Pseudo-Plutarch  and  Photius  (Cod.  262)  do 
not  mention  it,  although  they  may  have  included  it  under  the  general  title 
iyii(bliia{8s6B). 

^^  de  Lys.  c.  29. 

^XIV,  109. 

""  Diodorus  Sic.  XIV,  109,  3 : ote  xai  xov  '0X,UM,mx6v  X-oyov 

§jiiYQacp6nsvov  dvevvto.  Ps.-Plut.  836D. 

For  the  reading  of  a  speech  from  manuscript,  see  Ps.-Plut.  836D : 
dv8YV(o  §8  xai  Ev  xfj  'OA-uputiaxfj  Ka\y\yvQZi  "koyov  \iiyiaxov,  of  this  same 
speech.    Lamachus  read  his  attack  on  the  Olynthians  :  Plut.  Dem.  c.  9 :  dxouaag 

AajAdxov dvaYivcaaxo-vTO?,  and    Ps.-Plut.     845C.      dvavvovg     is 

the  word  used  (Plut.  de  Garrul.  c.  5)  of  the  man  who  had  purchased  a  speech 


112  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Isocrates,  who  follows  Lysias  in  the  list  of  Attic  orators,  was, 
as  Macaulay  says,^®*  ''rather  a  pamphleteer  than  an  orator."  With 
the  exception  of  the  six   forensic  speeches,^^^  all   Isocrates'  pro- 

from  Lysias  reading  it  over  to  himself  as  opposed  to  delivering  it  (Xeyeiv) 
in  court.  According  to  Menander  (Rhet.  Gr.  IX,  623,  25,  Walz)'  Isocrates 
read  (dvavvoug)  his  Panegyric  at  Olympia,  as  did  Gorgias  according  to 
Plutarch  (Conj.  Praec.  c.  43,  144B :  roQYiou  xov  'QTjxoQog  dvavvovTog  ev 
'Ohiixjiiq.  "koyov  .....)  ^Eschines  read  Demosthenes'  speech  at  Rhodes 
(cf.  n.  299).  Caesar  read  his  speeches  to  the  pirates  (Plut.  Apophtheg.  205F)'. 
Pompey's  oration  in  praise  of  Plancus  was  read  in  the  Senate  (Plut.  Cat. 
Min.  c.  48,  753;  see,  however,  Pomp.  c.  55,  649).  For  other  references  see 
Cicero,  ad  Att.  IV,  3;  ad  Fam.  X,  13. 

How  far  the  Greek  orator  used  his  manuscript  when  delivering,  not 
reading  a  speech,  I  am  unable  to  say.  Alcidamas  (15)  refers  to  tablets 
(VQaniixaTElov)'  as  a  help  to  the  orator,  and  probably  to  a  manuscript 
(pipXiov)l;  cf.  p.  30,  n.  117.    On  the  use  of  notes  see  p.  164,  n.  414, 

This  reading  of  a  speech  was  of  course  distinct  from  author's  readings 
such  as  those  given  by  Herodotus  (Eusebius,  Chron.  ad  Ol.  83-4;  Lucian, 
Herod,  i.  ff. ;  Suidas  s.  v,  0ouhv8.  ;  'OoyqIv;  Marcell.  Vit.  Thucyd.;  Photius, 
Cod.  LX),  Thucydides,  Lucian,  Plutarch,  and  Maximus  of  Tyre. 

Among  the  Romans  we  are  told  that  Asinus  Pollio  was  the  first  to  invite 
his  friends  to  a  recital  of  his  own  compositions  (Seneca,  Contr.  IV,  praef.2). 

On  author's  readings,  public  recitations,  etc.,  see  the  exhaustive  notes 
of  Mayor  on  Juvenal,  III,  9;  VII,  38  ff.;  VII,  84  ff. 

As  late  as  Pliny's  time  there  was  no  system  of  publication  by  which 
a  work  could  be  brought  before  the  public,  although  the  book  selling  trade 
was  extensive  (Pliny,  Ep.  VI,  2;  9;  11;  Martial,  I,  117.  Recitations  largely 
took  its  place. 

On  the  publication  of  books  see  Haenny,  Schriftsteller  u.  Buchhdndler. 

^^  On  the  Athenian  Orators.  Macaulay's  own  speeches  are  merely  essays 
which  he  recited. 

"The  modem  analogy  for  Isocrates'  oratory  is  that  of  the  pulpit"  (Jebb, 

II,  7). 

'*  There  has  been  much  discussion  over  the  question  as  to  whether 
Isocrates  did  or  did  not  write  for  the  law-courts.  Aristotle  in  his  Rhetoric 
(I,  9;  cf.  also  Ps.-Plut.  837A)  speaks  of  Isocrates  as  familiar  with  suit- 
pleading,  and  according  to  the  current  story,  sneered  at  the  bundles  of  the 
rhetorician's  speeches  which  he-  saw  hawked  about  by  the  book-sellers 
(Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  18)'.  The  reading  8id  tt)v  ouvri^eiav  xoO 
bi'Ko'koyelv  adopted  by  Jebb  in  his  translation  of  Aristotle's  Rhetoric  (1909) 
is,  however,  that  of  the  inferior  manuscripts.  Spengel,  Cope,  and  Roemer 
prefer  the  reading  of  the  Paris  manuscript  8ia  ttiv  dcruvri^Eiav.  Cope  (Comm. 
on  Arist.  I,  185)  renders  this  "in  consequence  of  his  want  of  actual  practice 
in  the  law-courts." 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS       II3 

Cicero  (Brut.  XII,  48)  probably  on  Aristotle's  authority,  says  Isocrates 
wrote  speeches  for  others  to  deliver.  The  Pseudo-Plutarch  (837A)  says: 
"It  is  evident  that  he  composed  orations  for  others  to  use,  but  himself  de- 
livered only  one,  that  Concerning  the  Exchange  of  Property."  Photius  {Cod. 
159)!  mentions  such  speeches  and  expresses  no  doubt  as  to  their  authenticity. 
In  the  supposed  reference  to  Isocrates  in  Plato's  Euthydemus  (278E),  he 
is  spoken  of  as  "one  who  composed  speeches  for  the  law-courts  with  ability 
and  success,"  and  later  the  speaker  says  of  the  same  person :  "I  doubt  whether 
he  ever  got  up  in  court  in  his  life,  though  they  say  that  he  is  thoroughly 
versed  in  his  profession  and  that  he  writes  excellent  speeches." 

Lucian  in  the  Parasite  (c.  42)  says:  "Isocrates,  so  far  from  serving  in 
war,  never  ventured  into  a  law-court;"  compare  Quint.  X,  i,  79.  The  reason 
given  by  Lucian  is  Isocrates'  weakness  of  voice.  This,  however,  is  merely 
against  personal  delivery  of  a  court  speech.  It  does  not  prove  that  he  never 
wrote  any. 

Isocrates  himself  nowhere  refers  to  this  part  of  his  career.  He  alludes 
with  scorn  to  those  who  write  forensic  speeches  (IV,  11 ;  XII,  11 ;  XV,  2;  3), 
as  compared  with  the  higher  type  of  speeches  he  advocates  (IV,  i ;  11-12;  XII, 
11;  26-35;  XV,  2-3;  38;  41;  46;  48;  49;  51;  161;  216;  228;  276;  XIII,  20). 
Isocrates'  adopted  son,  Aphareus,  declares  that  Isocrates  never  wrote  a 
forensic  speech  (Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  18)  but  Dionysius  rejects  the 
statement,  and  on  the  authority  of  one  of  Isocrates'  pupils,  Cephisodorus, 
believes  that  he  did  write  some  forensic  speeches,  but  not  many.  Cf.  Grote, 
Plato,  III,  36.    On  the  court  speeches  see  Blass,  11,^  213-40;  III,  2;  377-8. 

Most  modern  critics  also  believe  the  speeches  genuine.  Thompson, 
Phaedrus,  p.  182,  n.  declares  that  Isocrates'  forensic  speeches  are  his  best. 
Mahafify  (II,  221)  points  out  that  a  sentence  in  the  earliest  of  them  {Against 
Callimachus)  is  copied  verbatim  in  the  Antidosis.  There  seems  to  be  no 
passage  where  Isocrates  explicitly  denies  that  he  wrote  for  the  courts;  he 
simply  ignores  this  early  part  of  his  career. 

Another  theory  in  regard  to  the  court-speeches  is  that  they  are  merely 
rhetorical  exercises,  iieXixai,  perhaps  written  on  the  occasion  of  real  law-suits, 
in  rivalry  with  the  speeches  actually  delivered,  and  by  way  of  models  for 
his  pupils  to  show  what  ought  to  have  been  said  (Mahafify,  II,  212).  The 
view  that  the  speeches  are  rhetorical  exercises  is  held  by  Blass,  III,  118; 
Benseler,  de  Hiatu  (he  rejects  Or.  XVII,  and  XXI,  because  of  the  admission 
of  hiatus),  and  Westermann  {Hist.  Or.  Or.  p.  82).  The  opposite  opinion 
is  held  by  Miiller  {Hist.  Gr.  Lit.  II,  159)  ;  Rauchenstein  {Introd.  Panegyr. 
p.  iv)  ;  Henn,  de  Isocrate  rhetore;  cf.  Jebb,  II,  221  flf. ;  Norden,  E.,  Die 
Antike  Kunstprosa,  I   (1898),  113-119- 

While  not  strictly  a  forensic  speech,  there  is  a  possibility  that  the 
Plataicus  may  have  been  written  by  Isocrates  for  actual  delivery  by  a 
Plataean  in  the  ecclesia  at  Athens  (Grote,  Hist.  Gr.  X,  220)  ;  Croiset,  IV, 
498.  Plutarch  {de  Glor.  Athen.  350B)  attributes  this  speech  to  Hyperides. 
cf.  Blass,  II,"  265-68. 


114  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

ductions  were  written  to  be  read,  not  spoken/^^  He  himself  tells 
us  that  he  was  barred  from  participation  in  public  affairs  by  his 
weakness  of  voice  and  timidity  of  disposition.^^^  Although  he  gained 

^®*  There  is  a  slight  possibility  that  the  Archidamus  may  have  been 
delivered.  In  this  speech  Isocrates  seems  to  have  caught  more  nearly  the 
real  oratorical  tone.  Jebb  (II,  195)  believes  that  the  speech  was  sent  to 
Archidamus,  not  for  delivery,  but  as  a  proof  of  sympathy  with  the  Spartan 
policy.  Spengel  {Art.  Script.  Introd.  p.  xxiv)  says  of  it :  "non  est  ut 
Philip  pus  oratio  Archidamo  missa,  sed  declamatio,"  (cf.  the  hypothesis  to 
the  speech,  quoted  by  Spengel)',  but,  as  Jebb  remarks,  the  fact  that  the  speech 
was  a  declamation  would  not  prove  that  it  was  not  sent  to  Archidamus.  The 
speech  doubtless  expresses  more  or  less  faithfully,  the  feeling  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Spartans  over  the  reestablishment  of  Messenia,  and  Isocrates 
has  attempted  to  give  it  something  of  a  Spartan  air  (15-16).  There  is 
nothing  in  the  oration  which  would  prevent  Archidamus  from  using  it  if  he 
had  wished  to  do  so. 

On  the  speech  see  Blass,  IP  288-293. 

The  Nicocles  is  another  speech  about  which  there  may  be  doubt  as  to 
whether  it  was  delivered.  Jebb  (II,  90)  says:  "the  piece  was  no  doubt  written 
to  order."  If  the  Salaminians  had  heard  the  Ad  Nicoclem  as  section  11  of 
this  speech  says,  it  would  be  very  natural  for  Nicocles  to  desire  that  they 
should  see  the  other  side  of  the  picture.  The  plea  for  monarchy  (14  ff.) 
does  not  represent  the  real  opinion  of  Isocrates,  but  is,  of  course  perfectly 
suited  to  Nicocles.  The  praises  of  the  reign  of  Nicocles  (27  ff.)  which 
sound  rather  strange  when  put  into  the  King's  own  mouth,  would  not,  per- 
haps, be  an  argument  against  the  possibility  of  the  speech  having  been 
recited  by  the  monarch.  The  argument,  by  an  unknown  grammarian,  says : 
xal  yo.Q  xal  6  Xoyog  vjto  NixoxXEOvg  XevExai,  but  the  verb  here  may  mean  no 
more  than  "is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Nicocles."  On  the  two  speeches  see 
Blass,  IP  269-78. 

^Isocr.  V.  81-82;  XII,  9-10;  Ep.  I,  9;  Ep.  VIII,  7.  Cf.  also  Ps.-Plut. 
837A;  838E;  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  3,  10;  de  Rep.  Ill,  42;  Brut.  VIII,  32;  Pliny, 
Ep.  VI,  29,  6;  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  3;  Suidas,  s.  n.;  Lucian,  Parasit.  c. 
42.  Cf.  De  Quincey  (ed.  Masson,  1890)  vol.  X,  210;  323-4;  296. 

The  Pseudo-Plutarch  (837A)'  says  Isocrates  delivered  the  Antidosis  him- 
self, but  this  is  clearly  wrong  (cf.  Antid.  13).  Isocrates  was  challenged  to 
an  exchange  of  properties  (Dionys.  Hal.  de  Dinar ch.  13),  but  did  not  appear 
in  court  because  of  illness.  His  adopted  son,  Aphareus,  represented  him,  and 
made  a  speech  on  that  occasion  (Dionys.  Hal.  de  Dinarch.  13).  Isocratfes' 
essay,  which  is  a  defense  of  his  whole  life,  he  puts  in  the  form  of  a  speech 
delivered  in  court  (7-9;  lo-ii)  against  an  imaginary  opponent,  Lysimachus 
(sec.  14),  whom  he  taunts  with  delivering  a  composed  speech  even  while  he 
attacks  the  skill  of  Isocrates'  compositions.  The  real  challenger,  according 
to  Dionysius  {de  Dinarch.  13)  was  Megaclides.  On  this  speech  see  Blass, 
IP  73-4;  308;  314.     So  in  the  Areopagiticus  and  the  de  Pace  (145)  "the  de- 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   11$ 

the  name  of  "the  father  of  eloquence,"^^®  and  although  his  house 
was  called  the  "school  of  eloquence,"  ^^^  and  the  "Trojan  horse 
from  which  none  but  real  heroes  proceeded,"  ^^"  this  fame  was  due 
to  his  ability  as  a  teacher  rather  than  as  a  speaker. ^"^^  Indeed,  he 
himself  boasts  that  he  had  more  pupils  than  any  other  teacher  of 
the  art.202 

Isocrates  is  described  as  a  pupil  of  Tisias,-^^  Prodicus  ^'^'^  and 

liberative  form  was  adopted  merely  for  the  sake  of  giving  greater  life  and 
impressiveness  of  the  pleading"  (Jebb,  II,  203  flf. ;  182  ff. ;  Blass,  IP  299-308. 

On  one  occasion  only  we  are  told  that  Isocrates  was  able  to  overcome 
his  natural  lack  of  nerve.  During  the  rule  of  the  Thirty  at  Athens,  when 
Theramenes  was  unjustly  condemned  by  Critias,  Isocrates  arose  and  stoutly 
defended  him.  The  story,  however  seems  to  be  based  on  insufficient  evi- 
dence (Suidas,  s.  v.  'Aqyeov  uio?;  Pseudo-Plutarch,  836F). 

The  tradition  that  Isocrates  came  forward  as  a  rival  of  his  own  pupils 
in  the  contest  in  memory  of  Mausolus,  and  that  he  was  defeated  by  Theo- 
pompus,  is  probably  groundless.  The  Isocrates  who  contended  was  probably 
Isocrates  of  Apollonia,  the  greater  Isocrates'  pupil.  Suidas  mentions  an 
Isocrates  as  a  contestant  but  says  that  none  but  pupils  of  Isocrates  of  Athens 
entered,  thus  showing  that  he  understood  that  the  Isocrates  named  was 
Isocrates  of  Apollonia  (s.  v.  *A|Livx>.a,  'laoxQCixTig,  ©£o8EXTTig)l  The  Pseudo- 
Plutarch  (838B)  and  Aulus  Gellius  (X,  18)!  say  Isocrates  of  Athens. 
Theopompus,  whom  Ruhnken  {Hist.  Crit.  Orat.  Gr.  p.  Ixxxv)  says  ought  to 
be  believed  rather  than  "a  hundred  Suidases,"  boasts  that  he  defeated  his 
master  Isocrates  (Euseb.  Pr.  Ev.  X,  3,  p.  464).  This  view  is  held  by  Taylor 
{Lectiones  Lysiacae  III,  p.  233).  Sanneg  {de  Schola  Isocratea)  ingeniously 
tries  to  combine  both  views  by  proposing  the  explanation  that  Isocrates  of 
Athens  wrote  a  speech  which  Isocrates  of  Apollonia  delivered. 

Presence  of  mind,  which  Isocrates  so  plainly  lacked,  is  believed  by 
Quintilian  to  be  the  most  important  of  all  the  qualities  needed  by  the  orator. 
Neither  study  nor  knowledge  will  avail  without  it.  (XII,  5,  2)'. 

"®  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  3,  10;  cf.  de  Rep.  Ill,  30,  42;  Isocr.  XII,  10. 

"*  Cicero,  Brut.  VIII,  32 ;  compare  Isocr.  XV,  295. 

'""Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  22,  94. 

^"^ Quint.  II,  8,  II.  On  Isocrates  as  a  teacher  see  Girard,  Paul:  L' educa- 
tion athefiienne,  310-327,  and  Strowski,  M.  F. :  de  Isocratis  paedagogia  (Albi, 
1898). 

'°'XV,  30;  41.  Cf.  Quint.  XII,  10,  22;  III,  i,  14;  later  the  pupils  of 
Isocrates  were  made  the  subject  of  a  special  treatise  by  Hermippus,  which  is 
praised  by  Athenaeus  (VIII,  342C).  Cf.  also  Sanneg,  P.:  de  Schola  Isocratea 
(Halle,  1867). 

^  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  i ;  Photius,  Cod.  260 ;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Isocrates. 

'"*Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  i ;  Photius,  Cod.  260;  Ps.-Plut.  836;  cf. 
Welcker,  Kleine  Schrift.  II,  393-541. 


Il6  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Gorgias,^^^  and  also  of  Theramenes  who  was  put  to  death  by  the 
Thirty.2«« 

He  himself  did  not  claim  any  ability  as  a  speaker.  Once  when  he 
was  asked  how  it  was  that  he  who  himself  possessed  no  great 
amount  of  eloquence,  could  make  others  eloquent,  he  replied :  ''Just 
as  a  whetstone  cannot  cut,  yet  will  sharpen  knives  for  that  pur- 
pose." 2«^ 

Isocrates  looked  upon  his  speeches  as  productions  to  be  read 
rather  than  delivered,^^^  and  complains  bitterly  of  those  who  fail 
to  do  justice  to  his  compositions  in  reading  them.^^^  So  in  later 
years  when  Hieronymus  tried  to  declaim  Isocrates'  orations  with  the 
gestures,  passion,  and  tones  appropriate  to  speeches,  he  failed  utter- 
ly. He  says  scornfully  that  Isocrates  "has  dropped  his  voice  to  the 
key  in  which  a  slave  reads  aloud  to  his  master."  -^° 

Isocrates  was  well  aware  of  the  disadvantages  under  which  a 

^Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  i;  de  vi  die.  Dent.  c.  4;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  13 
(who  quotes  Aristotle  as  his  authority);  Cicero,  de  Senect.  V,  13;  Orator, 
LII,  176;  Suidas,  s.  v.  Isocrates;  Gorgias;  Val.  Max.  VIII,  c.  13,  2;  Photius, 
Cod.  260;  Ps.-Plut.  836;  Phil.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  4;  cf.  Frei.  p.  541. 

"^  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  i ;  Photius,  Cod.  260 ;  Ps.-Plut.  837A. 

^Ps.-Plut.  838E.  Cf.  Horace,  A.  P.  304:  reddere  quae  ferrum  valet, 
exsors  ipsa  secandi.  Photius,  Cod.  260;  Stephan.  Apophtheg.  p.  697;  Arsen. 
Viol.  p.  307;  Sextus  Empir.  p.  678,  14  Bek. ;  Chaucer,  Troilus  and  Criseyde 
I,  631. 

^  Cf .  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  2 ;  compare  Isocr.  XV,  67. 

^*®XII,  17;  also  V,  26-27.  These  people  might  belong  to  either  of  two 
classes:  (i)  opponents  or  plagiarists  who  "murdered"  his  speeches  pur- 
posely;   (2)'  merely  bad  readers  who  might  be  students  or  friends. 

When  Isocrates  sent  the  Philippus  to  Philip,  he  probably  contemplated 
the  possibility  that  it  would  be  read  to  him.  The  actual  pronouncing  of  the 
speech  was  indispensable  according  to  Greek  feeling.  The  modern  feeling 
is  different.  Macaulay,  On  the  Athenian  Orators,  says:  "Our  legislators, 
our  candidates,  on  great  occasions,  even  our  advocates,  address  themselves 
less  to  the  audience  than  to  the  reporters.  They  think  less  of  the  few 
hearers  than  of  the  innumerable  readers.  At  Athens  the  case  was  differ- 
ent" etc. 

""Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isocr.  c.  13;  also  c.  2;  Quint.  X,  i,  79;  XII,  10,  49. 
The  translation  given  is  Jebb's  rendering  of  the  words  elg  dvayvcooxou 
7tai86g  cpcovriv  xaxaSmrxa,  (II,  71).  Croiset  (IV,  493)  less  happily  gives: 
"le  chantonnement  monotone  d'un  enfant  qui  lit  a  haute  voix." 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   11/ 

speech  not  intended  for  delivery  lay.    He  says  in  the  Philippus :  ^^^ 
"Now  I  have  not  forgotten  the  great  advantage  which  spoken  dis- 

^"25-26.  Cf.  also  Ep.  I,  2.  Compare  Ps.  Dem.  Erotica,  61,  2:  "All  this  is 
written  in  the  way  in  which  you  would  put  it  down  in  a  note-book.  For 
orations  intended  for  oral  delivery  ought  to  be  written  in  a  simple  style  like 
what  you  would  say  on  the  spur  of  the  moment  (ex  xoii  (Jiaga/Qfjiia)  ;  but 
those  which  are  intended  for  permanence  should  be  composed  with  the  utmost 
care  and  according  to  rules  of  art.  It  is  proper  that  the  former  should  be 
convincing,  the  latter  epideictic"  (Kennedy). 

Isocrates  himself  calls  the  Philippus  a  pamphlet  (21)  :  x6  pipXiov. 
On  the  difference  in  the  effect  produced  by  a  speech  delivered  and  a 
speech  read  see  Quint.  X,  i,  16  ff.;  Pliny,  Ep.  II,  3,  9;  19,  i,  who  laments 
the  fact  that  in  a  speech  read  there  is  no  room  for  impromptus. 

Dr.  Blair  (Lecture  XXVI),  in  discussing  modern  eloquence  says:  "With 
regard  to  the  pulpit,  it  has  certainly  been  a  great  disadvantage  that  the 
practice  of  reading  sermons,  instead  of  repeating  them  from  memory,  has 
prevailed  so  universally  in  England.  They  may,  indeed,  have  introduced 
accuracy,  but  it  has  done  great  prejudice  to  eloquence,  for  a  discourse  read 
is  far  inferior  to  an  oration  spoken.  It  leads  to  a  different  sort  of  compo- 
sition as  well  as  of  delivery,  and  can  never  have  an  equal  effect  on  any 
audience."  (Cf.  also  Lecture  XXV,  vol.  II,  178;  XXIX,  p.  321;  XXXIV, 
471;  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Orators,  p.  198  ff.). 

Quintilian  denies  (XIL  10,  49  ff.)  that  the  modes  of  speaking  and  writ- 
ing differ  (cf.  p.  43,  n.  i68)L  He  says  (51)  that  a  written  oration  is  nothing 
else  but  a  record  of  an  oration  delivered.  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  says:  "For  the 
oration  on  paper  is,  in  truth,  the  original  and  model  of  the  speech  that  is  to 
be  pronounced." 

The  Greeks  and  Romans  paid  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  delivery. 
Demosthenes  regarded  it  as  of  supreme  importance  (cf.  n.  257,  p.  124). 
Cicero  called  it  the  language  {de  Or.  Ill,  59)  and  the  eloquence  of  the 
body  {Orator,  c.  XVII).  Quintilian  (XI,  3,  i  ff.)  has  a  long  discussion  of 
delivery,  mentioning  the  orators  who  were  famed  in  that  respect,  and  adding 
comments  (compare  XII,  5.  5).  Cf.  also  Cicero,  Orat.  c.  LVI;  de  Or.  Ill, 
56,  213;  I,  31,  142;  II,  19,  78;  Brut.  LXVI,  234;  XXXVIII,  141-2;  Longinus, 
Ars  Rhet.  (Rhet.  Gr.  I,  310,  Sp.).  Aristotle  {Rhet.  Ill,  i,  3)  declares  that 
being  qualified  for  delivery  is  a  gift  of  nature,  and  rather  without  the 
province  of  art.  Cf.  Dionys.  Hal.  de  vi  die.  Dem.  c.  22. 

Cicero  {Orator,  XXXVII,  130)  says  that  the  written  page  lacks  that 
living  breath  (spiritus)  which  makes  exactly  the  same  passages  appear  more 
striking  when  delivered  than  when  read.  Cf.  Arist.  Rhet.  Ill,  12,  2;  Dionys. 
Hal.  de  Dem  54,  of  Demosthenes'  speeches  when  badly  delivered. 

How  an  orator  delivered  his  speech  was  even  more  important  than 
what  he  said:  Quint.  XI,  3,  5;  Plut.  Pol.  Praec.  801C  (who  quotes  Menander, 
Kock,  III,  13s)  ;  Cicero,  Brut.  XLIX,  184. 


Il8  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

courses  have  over  written  ^^^  for  the  purpose  of  persuasion,  nor 
have  I  forgotten  the  universal  impression  that  the  one  is  delivered 
in  connection  with  serious  and  important  affairs,  the  other  com- 
posed merely  for  the  purpose  of  display  or  for  the  sake  of  profit. 
And  this  belief  is  not  without  reason;  for  when  a  discourse  is  de- 
prived of  the  personal  reputation  of  the  speaker,  of  the  tones  of 
his  voice,  and  of  the  changes  of  expression  which  oratory  can  com- 
mand, and  when  it  has  lost,  in  addition,  the  advantages  of  time  and 
place  and  of  the  enthusiasm  called  forth  by  the  affair  under  con- 
sideration ;^^^  when  the  discourse  is  bare  and  destitute  of  all  the 
things  I  have  spoken  of,  and  is  read  in  an  unpersuasive  manner, 
without  giving  any  impression  of  character,  but  in  the  manner  of 
one  telling  over  an  inventory,  it  naturally  appears  to  the  hearers  to 
be  a  poor  production."-^* 

This  disadvantage  Isocrates  labored  to  overcome  by  the  time  he 
spent  in  perfecting  the  style  of  his  speeches.  He  was  a  tireless 
worker.  Even  in  his  ninety-seventh  year,  while  suffering  from  the 
disease  which  finally  caused  his  death,  he  boasts  that  he  is  still  able 
to  work  hard.^^^    He  spent  three  years  on  the  Panathenaicus.     He 


Hardwicke,  p.  152,  speaking  of  John  Philpot  Curran,  says:  "In  reading 
his  speeches  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  not  so  much  his  matter, 
but  the  manner  in  which  his  speech  was  made  which  invested  it  with  such 
irresistible  power,  and  caused  it  to  produce  such  wonderful  effects." 

The  importance  of  the  manner  of  delivery  made  Fox  say:  "Did  the 
speech  read  well  when  reported?  If  so,  it  was  a  bad  one"  (quoted  by  Hard- 
wicke p.  126).  Cf.  Whately's  remarks  on  delivery  in  his  Elements' of  Rhetoric 
(quoted  by  Byars,  Handbook  of  Oratory,  p.  254)  and  the  passage  from 
Harsha,  quoted  by  Byars,  pp.  316-317.  Compare  Mathews,  Oratory  and  Ora- 
tors, Chapter  I, 

'^It  might,  perhaps,  ht  thought  that  in  the  "spoken  discourse"  Isocrates 
was  thinking  of  extemporary  speeches,  but  it  is  probable  that  he  had  in 
mind  merely  speeches  delivered,  which  had  been  written  and  committed  to 
m'emory,  like  those  mentioned  in  Ps.  Dem.  Erot,  61,  2;  cf.  n.  211. 

="'Cf.  De  Quincey,  Vol.  X,  326;  also  Blair's  Lecture  (VII)  On  the  Rise 
and  Progress  of  Writing,  Vol.  I,  171. 

^"The  opposition  Isocrates  had  in  mind  was  that  between  a  speech 
actually  delivered  by  the  author,  or  learned  and  delivered  by  another  as  if 
he  were  the  author,  and  a  speech  avowedly  read  with  no  attempt  at  delivery, 
Cf.  n.  211. 

*«XII,  268;  Cicero,  de  Senect.  c.  5. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACflCE  OF  ORATORS   II9 

tells  US  that  he  began  this  oration  at  the  age  of  ninety-four  ^^^  and 
speaks  of  revising  it  with  some  of  his  young  pupils. ^^^  When  the 
speech  was  about  half  written  he  fell  ill,^^^  and  it  was  only  finally 
completed  when  he  reached  his  ninety-seventh  year.^^^ 

Isocrates  gives  in  the  same  speech  an  interesting  account  of  his 
careful  method.  He  had  been  revising  the  speech  with  some  of 
his  pupils,  and  they  believed  that  nothing  was  lacking  but  a  con- 
clusion.-^'^  A  friend  whom  Isocrates  asked  for  an  opinion  about  his 
speech  disliked  the  criticism  of  Sparta.  Isocrates  silenced  this  critic  ^^^ 
and  had  his  essay  written  out  at  once ;  ^^^  but  a  few  days  later  he 
was  seized  with  new  misgivings,  and  at  last  called  a  council  of 
friends  to  decide  whether  the  composition  should  be  burnt  or  pub- 
lished.--^ At  its  reading  the  speech  met  with  their  approv- 
al.22* 

In  other  speeches  of  Isocrates  there  is  evidence  of  the  same 
painstaking  workmanship.  He  himself  acknowledges  that  the  Peace 
of  346,  between  Athens  and  Philip,  was  made  before  he  finished  the 
work  in  which  he  intended  to  advocate  its  measures.^^^ 


216 

a?. 


XII,  3;  Ps.-Plut.837F. 

200. 

^^*The  Panathenaicus,  he  says  (267),  was  begun  when  he  was  ninety-four 
years  old.  "It  was  already  half  completed  when  there  came  upon  me  a  dis- 
eas'e  unpleasant  to  mention,  which  is  able  to  destroy  not  only  the  old  in 
three  or  four  days,  but  also  many  in  the  prime  of  life.  Against  this  I  have 
been  struggling  for  three  years."  He  had  at  last  given  in,  when  his  friends 
urged  him  not  to  leave  his  speech  unfinished.  He  completed  it  as  they 
desired. 

""270. 

^°20o;  compare  V,  4. 

^^228. 

^231. 

"^233. 

^This  is  exactly  the  method  followed  by  M.  Ernest  Legouve  in  pre- 
paring a  lecture  according  to  Sarcey,  p.  106  ff.  The  French  lecturer,  after 
this  careful  revision,  committed  his  lecture  to  memory,  practiced  its  delivery, 
and  delivered  it  in  private  before  he  risked  a  public  appearance.  He  always 
took  his  manuscript  with  him  that  the  audience  might  not  think  that  he  was 
pretending  to  extemporize  (p.  147). 

Compare  the  anecdote  told  of  Archbishop  Tillotson  in  Campbell's  Philos- 
ophy of  Rhetoric  (quoted  by  Byars,  p.  208). 

^V,  4-7;  Tzetzes,  Chil.  XI,  382;  Athenaeus,  jieqI  ^Tixavrmaxcov  p.  2;  cf. 
Plut.  Mor.  350-351. 


I20  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

The  care  bestowed  upon  the  Panegyriciis  ^^^  became  almost  pro- 
verbial. Ten  years  is  usually  mentioned  as  expressing  the  duration 
of  its  composition,^^^  a  period  which  Quintilian  gives  as  the  lowest 
estimate  assigned  by  his  predecessors.^-^  Plutarch  -^^  speaks  scorn- 
fully of  this  painstaking  care :  "Isocrates  was  nearly  three  Olympi- 
ads in  writing  his  Panegyric; while  Timotheus  -^^ 

freed  Euboea    from  slavery he  sits  at  home,  poring 

over  his  work,  seeking  out  choice  words,  as  long  a  time  as  Pericles 

spent   in   erecting  the   Propylea   and   the   Parthenon 

Consider,  now,  the  poor  spirit  of  this  sophist  who  spent  the  ninth  part 
of  his  life  in  compiling  one  single  oration."  The  author  of  the 
treatise  On  the  Sublime,  in  like  manner,  quotes  Timaeus  as  praising 
Alexander  for  conquering  the  whole  of  Asia  in  fewer  years  than  it 
took  Isocrates  to  write  the  Panegyricusr^^ 

'^^Isocrates  himself  gave  the  speech  this  name:  V,  9;  84;  Ep.  Ill,  6; 
XV,  172. 

^  Ps.-Plut.  837E :  *'He  labored  on  his  Panegyric  ten  years,  or  as  some 
tell  us,  fifteen."  Cf.  Longin.  (?)  de  Suhlim.  4,  2;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb. 
c.  25;  de  vi  die.  in  Dem.  c.  51;  Photius;  Plut.  Mor.  350E  says  twelve  years. 
Cf.  Fenelon's  Dialogues  on  Eloquence. 

^^  X,  4,  4,  Quintilian  in  the  same  passage  mentions  Cinna's  Smyrna  which 
occupied  nine  years  in  composition.  On  this  see  Catullus,  95.  i ;  Philargyrus 
and  Servius  on  Verg.  Eel.  IX,  35.  The  latter  suggests  that  Horace's  "nine 
years"  {A.  P.  386)'  is  a  reference  to  this,  but  Horace  is  not  speaking  of  the 
time  spent  in  composition,  but  of  the  lapse  of  time  between  composition 
and  publication.    Cf.  Quintilian's  preface  to  his  treatise. 

Together  with  Isocrates'  Panegyricus,  critics  usually  mention  the  story  of 
Plato's  having  written  over  many  times  the  opening  words  of  the  Republic : 
Dionys.  Hal.  de  Comp.  Verb.  v.  25;  de  Dem.  c.  51;  Diog.  Laert.  Ill,  38; 
Quint.  VIII,  6,  64.  On  Vergil's  care  in  his  compositions  see  Aulus  Gellius 
XVII,  10;  Quint.  X.  3,  8. 

""'Mor.  350E-351A 

^  Timotheus  was  a  pupil  of  Isocrates :  XV,  102 ;  Ep.  VIII,  8 ;  Cic.  de  Or. 
Ill,  34,  139;  de  Off.  I,  32,  116.  According  to  the  Pseudo-Plutarch  (837)  and 
Photius  (Cod.  260),  Isocrates  composed  the  dispatches  which  Timotheus 
sent  to  the  Athenians. 

^ de  Sublim.  4,  2.  The  author  continues:  "On  this  principle  the 
Lacedaemonians  were  clearly  inferior  to  Isocrates  in  prowess,  for  they  spent 
thirty  years  in  the  conquest  of  Messene,  whereas  he  composed  his  Panegyric 
in  ten." 

Isocrates  avows  the  care  he  spent  on  this  composition :  IV,  13 ;  V,  84. 
We  may  venture  to  suppose  that  he  worked  it  over  with  his  pupils  as  he 
tells  us  he  did  with  later  writings:  V,  4;  17,-23;  XII,  200. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   121 

That  this  oration  was  ever  publicly  delivered,  as  Philostratus 
tells  us,-^^  is  extremely  unlikely.^^^  Isocrates'  weakness  of  voice  and 
lack  of  self-confidence  would  probably  have  deterred  him  from  the 
attempt,  but  apart  from  that,  the  manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
Lacedaemonians  would  make  it  improbable  that  the  speech  was 
actually  delivered.^^*  The  latter  argument  would  also  hold  against 
the  view  that  the  speech  might  have  been  delivered  for  Isocrates  by 
another.  The  probable  way  in  which  it  became  known  was  by  means 
of  copies  circulated  at  the  festival,  or  else  sent  to  the  leading  men 
in  the  various  Greek  states.-^^  This  speech  was  like  all  the  others, 
a  pamphlet  on  a  question  of  public  policy  thrown  into  the  form  of  a 
speech  delivered  under  imaginary  circumstances. 

Aelian  -^^  ascribes  to  the  influence  of  the  Panegyricus,  the  ex- 
pedition against  the  Persians  planned  by  Philip  and  carried  out  by 
Alexander.  While  we  need  not  take  the  statement  literally,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  influence  of  Isocrates'  pamphlets  in  their 
time  was  very  great.  The  renown  enjoyed  in  antiquity  by  the 
Panegyricus  is  attested  by  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  ^^^  and 
Philostratus.-^^  It  was  Isocrates,  as  well  as  Xenophon,  who  pre- 
pared the  way  for  Philip.^^^ 

^Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  4;  also  Aelian  Far.  Hist.  XIII,  11;  Lucian, 
in  Macrobiis  c.  23  (III,  225  ed.  Reitz).  Menander  (Rhet.  Gr.  IX,  623,  Walz) 
says:  wojieq  'laoxgaxTig  fiorOri,  xotg  "EX^Tiaiv  dvavvovg  ev  'OA-vjutia  xov 
jtavTiYVQixov  A.6yov.  Isocrates  himself  speaks  of  it  as  the  "speech  I  delivered 
at  the  festival,"  but  the  statement  is  not  to  be  pressed.  It  is,  no  doubt,  only 
one  of  those  touches  by  which  "ce  Haranguer  sans  tribune"  (J.  Girard,  Etudes 
sur  I'Eloquence  attique  p.  90)  endeavored  to  make  himself  seem  one  who  took 
an  active  part  in  public  affairs.  Compare  IV,  187;  V,  149-151,  and  elsewhere. 

^'  Some  of  the  sentences  are  far  too  long  for  delivery ;  for  example,  IV, 
47,  cpdoaocpiav  xoivw  ^.tI.  On  this  point  see  Quintilian,  VIII,  2,  17; 
Demetrius,  de  Elocut.  193.  Compare  Aristotle,  Rhet.  Ill,  5,  6. 

^*  Wilamowitz,  Aristoteles  und  Athen  (1893)  pp.  100-114;  also  Rauchen- 
stein's  Introd.  p.  21. 

^^In  V,  II,  Isocrates  speaks  of  the  Panegyricus  as  6  \6yoz  6  Jteoxegov 
Ex8o^8i5.  It  was  probably  published  in  a  year  in  which  the  festival  occurred, 
probably  380;  see  Sandys'  Panegyricus  Introd.  p.  xlii,  and  Blass,  II,  230. 

^  Far.  Hist.  XIII,  11.  Cf.  Isocr.  Ep.  Ill,  3.  According  to  the  author  of 
the  argument  to  the  Philippus,  it  was  not  the  Panegyricus  but  the  PhUippus 
which  roused  Alexander  to  make  war  on  Darius. 

^^  de  Isocr.  c.  14. 

^  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17;  cf.  also  Isocr.  V,  11. 

^On  the  Panegyricus  and  the  relation  of  Isocrates  to  the  Greek  and 
Athenian  politics  of  his  time  see  Blass  IP  250-256;  III,  2,*    379;   Oncken, 


122  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Of  Isaeus,-*^  whose  name  appears  next  in  the  canon,  very  Httle 
is  known.  He  is  said  to  have  been  the  pupil  of  Lysias  and  of 
Isocrates.^*^  With  the  exception  of  the  Greek  argument  to  his  Fourth 
Oration,^^^  there  is  no  evidence  that  Isaeus  ever  deHvered  a  speech. 
His  importance  is  usually  estimated  by  the  influence  which  he  exer- 
cised upon  his  pupil  Demosthenes.^'*^  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus 
says  he  discusses  Isaeus  because  he  believes  that  in  him  are  to  be 
found  the  seeds  and  beginnings  of  the  oratorical  power  which 
reached  its  perfection  in  Demosthenes.^**  Indeed,  Demosthenes  was 
later  reproached  by  Pytheas  with  having  swallowed  Isaeus  bodily. ^*^ 
It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  Demosthenes'  debt  to  Isaeus  was 
as  great   as  is  usually  believed. ^*^ 

The  tradition  which  makes  Demosthenes  a  pupil  of  Isocrates,-*'' 
is  probably  without  foundation.     Hermippus,  who  wrote  a  special 

W. :  Isokrates  und  Athen  (1862),  37-62;  Wilamowitz-Moellendorf,  U.  v.: 
Aristoteles  und  Athen  (1893)  II,  100-114;  Meyer,  Ed.:  Geschichte  des 
Altertums  V,  (1902)'  46;  312;  369-372. 

^On  Isaeus  see  Blass,  II,  452-541;  Jebb,  II,  261-368;  Moy,  M.  £tude 
sur  les  Plaidoyers  d'Isee,  Paris,  1876;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo,  especially  c. 
4,  and  c.  16. 

'^'Ps.-Plut.  839E;  Photius,  Cod.  CCLXIII;  Suidas  s.  n. ;  Eud.  Aug.  DVI ; 
Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo,  1 ;  genus  Isaei,  i. 

^  On  the  value  of  this  evidence  see  Blass,  II,  506 ;  Curtius,  Hist.  Gr.  V, 
226  (Wiard). 

^On  Isaeus  as  the  teacher  of  Demosthenes  see  Plut.  de  Glor.  Athen. 
350C;  Photius,  Cod.  CCLXIII;  CCLXV;  Ps.-Plut.  837D;  839F;  844C;  Suidas, 
s.  n. ;  Eud.  Aug.  DVI ;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo,  c.  i ;  c.  3 ;  genus  Isaei,  i ; 
Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  i ;  also  Hoffmann,  P. :  de  Demosthene  Isaei 
discipulo  (1875). 

On  Demosthenes'  speech  Against  Aphohus  as  the  work  of  Isaeus,  see 
Ps.-Plut.  839F;  844C. 

^  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo,  c.  3 ;  c.  20. 

^"Dionys.  Hal.  de  Isaeo,  c.  4. 

^  On  the  influence  of  Isaeus  on  Demosthenes  see  Blass,  HI,  14,  202 ; 
Jebb,  II,  267-69;  300;  the  dissertation  of  W.  Herforth  (Griinberg,  1880),  and 
the  careful  examination  made  by  A.  Laudahn  in  two  programs  (Hildesheim 
1872-3). 

^'Ps.-Plut.  837D;  839F;  844C;  Suidas  s.  n.;  we  are  also  told  that  he 
received  instructions  from  Plato :  Plut.  Dem.  c.  5  (on  the  authority  of 
Hermippus);  Cicero,  Brut.  XXXI,  121;  Orator,  IV,  15;  de  Or.  I,  20,  89; 
de  Off.  I,  I,  4;  Diog.  Laert.  Ill,  46;  Suidas,  s.  n. ;  Olympiodorus,  ad  Plat. 
Gorg.  515D;  Schol.  ad  Plat.  Phaedr.  261  A;  Quint.  XII,  2,  22;  XII,  10,  24; 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I23 

treatise  on  Isocrates'  pupils,  does  not  mention  him,  but  merely 
quotes  an  unbelievable  story  about  Demosthenes'  having  obtained 
some  of  Isocrates'  treatises  in  an  underhand  way.^*^  That  Isaeus 
aided  Demosthenes  in  the  composition  of  his  speeches  against  his 
guardians  is  very  likely,^*^  but  the  training  of  Isaeus  alone  would 
never  have  made  him  an  orator.  The  years  that  elapsed  between 
his  law-suits  with  his  guardians  and  the  delivery  of  his  first  public 
speech,^^"  he  devoted  to  overcoming  those  natural  defects  ^^^  which 
are  alleged  to  have  caused  his  failure  on  his  first  attempt  to  speak  in 
public,^^^  and  even  after  these  difficulties  were  conquered,  he  still 
labored  to  improve  his  gifts  as  an  orator  by  constant  industry.  We 
are  told  that  he  copied  the  works  of  Thucydides  eight  times  with 
his  own  hand,^^^  that  he  used  to  begin  work  before  dawn,  and  was 
vexed  if  he  found  that  the  workmen  were  astir  first  in  the  morn- 
ing.^^*  His  study  by  night  caused  his  opponents  to  sneer  at  his 
speeches  as  smelling  of  the  lamp.^^^    All  this  laborious  course  of 


Aul.  Gell.  Ill,  13;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  32,  26.  The  letter  of  Demosthenes  appealed 
to  as  testimony  by  Olympiodorus  is  doubtless  apocryphal.  Cf.  also  Schaefer, 
Dent.  u.  seine  Zeit,  I,  278-295;  312;  Blass,  III,  397;  Funkhaenal,  de  Deni. 
Platonis  discipulo ;  Heusde,  P.  W.  van:  Initia  Philosophiae  Platonicae,  Vol. 
II,  pt.  I,  p.  151  ff. 

^  Plut.  Dem.  c.  5,  5  (nguqja  Xapovxa)  ;  Ps.-Plut.  844C ;  Suidas,  s.  v. 
Demosthenes. 

=^^  Ps.-Plut.  839F;  844;  Liban.  Vit.  Dem.  p.  3;  Argum.  ad  Orat.  c.  Onet. 
p.  875. 

""In  354. 

'"Dion.  Hal.  de  Dem.  c.  53;  Cicero,  de  Div.  II,  46,  96;  de  Or.  I,  61, 
260-1;  de  Fin.  V,  2,  5;  Plut.  Dem.  c.  7;  c.  11;  Ps.-Plut.  844D;  Lucian, 
Encom.  Demcsth.  c.  14;  Suidas,  s.  n. ;  Quint.  X,  3,  30  (compare  X,  3,  25); 
XI,  3,  54;  XI,  3,  68;  130  (cf.  also  Liban.  Vit.  Dem.);  I,  11,  5;  Val.  Max. 
VIII,  7,  i;  Photius,  Bibl.  p.  493,  5;  Apuleius,  Apol.  p.  87;  Hermogenes 
Progym.  {Rhet.  Gr.  II,  7,  i  Sp.)!;  Zozimus,  Vit.  Dem.  p.  20,  2.  Schaefer,  I, 
299-301 ;  De  Quincey,  X,  p.  327 ;  Mathews,  p.  428. 

"^Plut.  Dem.  c.  6;  cf.  Ps.-Plut.  845 A;  Zozimus,  Vit.  Dem.  p.  19,  22. 
For  modern  instances  of  such  failure  see  Mathews,  p.  144  ff. 

^Lucian,  Adv.  Indoct.  c.  4.  Cf.  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Thucyd.  53. 

^Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  IV,  44;  Stobaeus,  Flor.  29,  90. 

^Plut.  Dem.  c.  8,  3;  c.  11;  Comp.  Dem.-Cic.  1-3;  Pol.  Praec.  802E-F; 
803C;  Cic.  Tusc.  Disp.  IV,  19,  44;  Ps.-Plut.  848C;  Athenaeus,  II,  22;  Aelian, 
Var.  Hist.  VII,  7;  Lucian,  Encom.  Dem.  c.  15;  cf.  ^sch.  Ill,  229;  Liban. 
79-82.  For  an  orator's  study  by  night,  etc.,  see  Aristophanes,  Knights  346, 


124  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

training, ^^^  not  only  in  composition  but  in  delivery,^^^  was  practiced 
before  rhetorical  theory  was  completed  by  the  treatise  of  Aristotle, 
for  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  is  at  great  pains  to  prove  that 
Demosthenes  had  delivered  his  most  important  orations  before 
Aristotle  wrote  his  Rhetoric .'^^^ 

Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  the  facility  which  his  training  must 
have  given  him,  this  "most  powerful  orator"  ^^^  would  never  speak 
extempore  if  he  could  possibly  help  it.^^*'  Plutarch  tells  us  that  al- 
and with  the  picture  there  given,  Horace,  A.  P.  474,  and  Plato,  Phaedr.  228B. 

On  Pytheas  see  Suidas,  s.  n. ;  Blass,  253-256.  Titles  of  works  by  him  are 
given  by  Sauppe,  O.  A.  II,  311. 

For  the  taunt  against  Demosthenes  as  a  water  drinker  see  Plut.  Dem. 
8;  Dem.  VI,  30;  XIX,  46.     Compare  Aristoph.  Eq.  89;  Com,  Poet,  fr,  41: 
evfiv  ap'  0)5  eoixe,  xal  ev  oivq)  Xoyoc, 
evioi  8'  \j8(oq  mvovxEg  elo'  dPEXTEQOi, 
also  Athenaeus,  p.  44E-F;  Lucian,  LXXIII,  15. 

^"^Lucian  ('qtitoqcov  8i8aaxa>.og)  contrasts  the  laborious  methods  of  such 
orators  as  Demosthenes  with  the  superficial  ones  followed  in  his  own  day. 

=*' Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  56,  213;  Brut.  XXXVIII,  142;  Orat.  XVII,  56; 
Quint.  XI,  3,  6-7;  Suidas;  Plut.  Dem.  c.  8;  Ps.-Plut.  845B;  Philodemus, 
Rhet.  16,  3  (I,  p.  196,  3,  ed.  Sudhaus)  ;  Longinus,  Ars  Rhet.  {Rhet.  Gr.  I, 
310,  32,  Sp.).  Cf.  Schaefer,  I,  298;  Emerson,  Essay  on  Eloquence  {Society 
and  Solitude,  70-71 ;  also  97-8)  ;  Bacon,  Essay  on  Boldness. 

^*Dionys.  Hal.  Ep.  ad  Ammaeum  I,  c.  2  ff. ;  c.  10  ff. 

Compare  Renan,  Discours  de  Reception  de  M.  de  Lesseps:  "You  have 
a  horror  of  rhetoric  and  you  are  right;  it  is  (with  poetics)  the  only  mistake 
of  the  Greeks.  After  having  produced  masterpieces,  they  thought  they  could 
give  rules  for  producing  them,  a  serious  mistake.  There  is  no  art  of  speak- 
ing, any  more  than  there  is  an  art  of  writing.  To  speak  well  is  to  think 
aloud.  Oratorical  and  literary  success  never  had  any  cause  but  one,  abso- 
lute sincerity." 

Thinking,  however,  is  one  thing,  and  speaking  another.  Theoretical 
knowledge  and  practice  are  also  necessary  for  an  orator.  Cf.  Cicero,  de  Or. 
I,  14,  63. 

Demosthenes,  too,  is  said  to  have  read  carefully  all  the  treatises  on 
rhetoric  that  he  could  get  hold  of :  Plut.  Dem.  c.  5.  For  the  idea  that  elo- 
quence has  not  sprung  from  art,  but  art  from  eloquence  see  Cicero,  de  Or. 
I,  32,  146. 

^™  Plut.  Alcib.  196A.  On  the  power  of  his  eloquence  see  Plut.  Dem.  c. 
18,  and  elsewhere.    Compare  Fenelon:  Lettre  a  I'Academie  frangaise. 

^®°  So  Dumoul  in  his  Recollections  of  Miraheau  says :  "More  a  thinker 
than  an  extemporiser,  he  never  spoke  without  first  writing  or  dictating  his 
speeches.    Resembling  Cicero  and  Demosthenes  in  this  respect,  he  read  them 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS  •  1 25 

though  he  was  frequently  called  upon  by  name  by  the  people  as  he 
sat  in  the  assembly,  he  would  not  rise  to  speak  unless  he  had 
previously  considered  the  subject  and  come  prepared  for  it.^^^  He 
"followed  Pericles"  in  his  "dislike  to  speak  on  the  sudden,"  and  was 
unwilling  too  often  to  put  his  faculty  of  speaking  at  the  mercy  of 
fortune.^^^  Plutarch  says  that  it  was  due  to  want  of  courage  and 
assurance  that  he  refused  to  speak  off-hand,^^^  giving  as  a  proof  the 
fact  that  when  Demosthenes  was  at  a  loss  and  discomposed,  Demades 
would  often  rise  up  on  the  sudden  to  support  him,  but  that  he  was 
never  seen  to  do  the  same  for  Demades.^^*    This  certainly  could  not 

over,  put  finishing  strokes,  gave  them  solidity  by  lengthened  arguments, 
lightened  them  by  touches  of  eloquence,  recalled  them  to  his  memory,  some- 
times read  them,  more  often  spoke  them,  adding,  to  that  which  he  had 
meditated  on,  the  abrupt,  unforeseen  fire  of  inspiration."  See,  however, 
Sears,  History  of  Oratory,  244-5,  on  Mirabeau. 

Mirabeau,  like  Demosthenes,  was  capable  of  extemporary  speaking. 

"^  Plut.  Dem.  c.  8 ;  also  de  Educat.  Puer.  9 :  "Demosthenes,  when  the 
Athenians  called  upon  him  for  his  advice,  refused  to  give  it,  saying  'I  am  un- 
prepared.' " 

These  calls  upon  Demosthenes  doubtless  occurred  at  those  unexpected 
meetings  of  the  senate  or  people  of  which  ^lEschines  speaks  (II,  72),  and  at 
which  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  orators  to  deliver  an  extempore 
cRjfiPov^euTixog  "koyoi;.  It  might  be  said  that  Demosthenes'  speech,  when  the 
news  came  that  Elatea  had  been  captured  by  Philip  (Dem.  XVIII,  174  ff.) 
was  of  this  character.  On  this,  Westermann  (p.  131)  has  the  following 
comment :  "Verum  nox  intercesserat  baud  dubie  meditando  commentandoque 
ab  oratore  consumpta."  When  Demosthenes  quotes  from  this  speech  he  seems 
to  claim  to  give  the  exact  words  (XVIII,  174-9),  thus  leading  one  to  sup- 
pose that  the  speech  was  prepared;  cf.  179:  Tauxa  xal  JiaQOJt^Tioia  xouxoig 

£ljld)V  XttTEpTlV. 

One  of  the  exordia  (IX)  of  the  collection  said  to  have  been  written  by 
Demosthenes  is  designed  to  serve  as  an  introduction  to  an  extemporary 
speech  of  advice. 

'"^Plut.  Dem.  c.  9;  cf.  also  Pol.  Praec.  803F-840A.  Demosthenes  himself 
declared  that  his  eloquence  came  only  from  practice:  Plut.  Comp.  Dem-Cic. 
2.  Exordium  XLV  has  the  same  idea,  that  the  faculty  of  eloquent  speaking 
is  acquired  by  practice. 

^Dem.  c.  8.  Cf.  also  Plut.  On  Man's  Progress  in  Virtue  80  C-D. 
For  Demosthenes'  reason  cf.  Plut.  de  Educat.  Puer.  c.  9;  Dem.  c.  8;  Ps.- 
Plut.  848C. 

^This  is  probably  a  mere  story.  On  Demades  see  Blass,  III,  B,  242-7. 
As  an  orator  he  seems  to  have  had  natural  gifts  of  an  extraordinary  kind 
(cf.    Pollux,    XII,    104 :    ArnxaSrig    evcpurig ;    Emerson,    Essay    on    Eloquence 


126  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

have  been  due  to  any  lack  of  ability  on  Demosthenes'  part.  Many 
contemporaries  believed  that  he  was  a  better  orator  when  he  spoke 
without  premeditation.^®^  The  story  is  told  that  once  when  Lamac- 
hus  the  Myrrhenaean  had  written  a  panegyric  upon  King  Philip  and 
Alexander,  in  which  he  uttered  many  things  in  reproach  of  the 
Thebans  and  Olynthians,  and  read  it  publicly  at  the  Olympic  games, 
Demosthenes  suddenly  arose  and  so  justified  the  Thebans  and 
Olynthians  that  Lamachus   was   forced  to  leave  the  assembly  at 


{Society  and  Solitude,  84-5).  His  powers  as  an  extemporary  speaker  made 
some  prefer  his  speeches  even  to  the  prepared  ones  of  Demosthenes  (Plut. 
Dem.  c.  10;  c.  23;  cf.  Aelian,  Var.  Hist.  XII,  c.  43)1.  Many  of  his  sayings 
are  to  be  found  scattered  through  Plutarch  and  Stobaeus.  Demetrius  (de 
Elocut.  282;  284-286)  refers  to  a  collection  of  his  sayings,  and  Aulus  Gellius 
(XI,  10)  quotes  a  witticism  of  his.  (Cf.  Diog.  Laert.  V,  81;  Apsines,  Ars 
Rhet.  p.  707),  Demades  wrote  no  speeches  (Cicero,  Brut.  IX,  36;  Orat. 
XXVI,  90;  Quint,  XII,  10,  49)1,  although  Tzetzes,  or  rather  the  ancient  rhet- 
orician whom  Tzetzes  compiled,  claims  to  have  read  speeches  of  his  (Tzet. 
Chil.  VI,  36,  37),  and  is  usually  cited  as  the  natural  orator  who  owed  nothing 
to  art.  Quintilian,  however,  in  discussing  him  (II,  17,  12-13)1  has  some 
excellent  remarks.  In  arguing  against  those  who  declare  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  learn  oratory  in  order  to  become  an  orator,  Quintilian  says: 
"They  cite  Demades,  a  waterman,  and  ^Eschines,  an  actor,  as  instances  of 

this but  it   is   not  certain  that   Demades   did  not  learn;    and 

he  might,  by  constant  practice  in  speaking,  which  is  the  most  efficient  mode 
of  learning,  have  made  himself  master  of  all  the  powers  of  language  that 
he  ever  possessed.  But  we  may  safely  say  that  he  would  have  been  a  better 
speaker  if  he  had  learned,  for  he  never  ventured  to  write  out  his  speeches 
for  publication,  though  we  know  that  he  produced  considerable  effect  in 
delivering  them."  Compare  Brougham's  remarks,  quoted  on  p.  59,  n.  241 ; 
also  those  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  on  the  same  topic:  Byars,  290-1. 

According  to  Stobaeus,  Flor.  29,  91,  Demades  plumed  himself  on  having 
had  no  other  master  but  the  tribune.  Pseudo-Callisthenes  II,  2-5,  professes 
to  give  a  speech  of  his,  and  Suidas  (s.  n.)  says:  8Yoail»8v  ' kitoXoyvayiOv 
jtQog  'O/iuM-Jtidfia  8o)8£>caETiag.  Neither  Sauppe  (O.  A.)  nor  Blass  (ed. 
Dinarchus,    1888)    who   give  the   fragment  believe   it   genuine. 

"^  Plut.  Dem.  c.  9.  As  a  modern  parallel  John  Bright  might  be  cited ; 
cf.  Goldwin  Smith,  Reminiscences,  238-9:  "Few  would  hesitate  to  give  John 
Bright  the  foremost  place  among  the  British  orators  of  his  day.  The  ques- 
tion whether  his  speeches  were  prepared  has  been  debated.  But  there  can 
be  no  doubt  upon  the  point.  I  have  stood  by  him  when  he  was  speaking 
and  seen  the  little  sheaf  of  notepapers  on  each  of  which  probably  his 
sentence  or  his  catchword  was  written,  and  which  dropped  into  his  hat  as 
he  went  on.     Nobody  can  speak  literature  ex  tempore,  and  Bright's  great 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 27 

once.^^^  While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Demosthenes  possessed 
the  ability  to  speak  extempore,^*'^  and  probably  incorporated  some 
extemporary  matter  in  his  speeches,^®^  he  always  preferred  to  pre- 
pare his  speech  if  he  could. "®®    This  habit  of  his  became  a  by-word 

speeches  are  literature,  first-rate  of  its  kind.  He  was,  however,  by  no 
means  without  the  power  of  speaking  ex  tempore.  I  have  known  him  when 
called  on  unexpectedly  to  respond  very  well.  If  he  was  interrupted  by  an 
opponent  in  his  speech,  he  was  ready  with  his  retort.  He  told  me  that  when 
he  was  to  speak  at  the  unveiling  of  Cobden's  Statue  at  Bradford  he  had 
been  greatly  at  a  loss  as  to  what  he  should  say;  but  the  happy  thought  had 
come  to  him  one  morning  while  he  was  dressing.  He  had  begun  as  a 
temperance  lecturer  with  a  single  address.  He  had  no  doubt  formed  his 
style  on  the  Bible,  which  I  never  heard  read  so  well  as  when  I  heard 
him  read  it  to  his  household.  His  delivery  was  calm  and  impressive,  with- 
out gesticulation  or  appearance  of  rhetorical  passion.  His  enunciation 
was  perfectly  distinct,  and  he  thus  without  straining  his  voice  made  him- 
self heard  in  the  largest  hall.  He  confessed  to  me  that  after  all  his  practice 
and  success  he  never  got  over  his  nervousness.  At  Bradford,  where  his 
audience  was  more  than  friendly,  he  told  me  that  his  knees  shook  under  him 
when  he  rose  to  speak". 

^^  Plut.  Dem.  c.  9;  the  same  story  is  told  by  the  Pseudo- Plutarch,  845C, 
who  uses  the  same  word,  dvavivcoaxovTog. 

''*^It  hardly  seems  possible  to  doubt  that  some  of  the  speeches  made  by 
Demosthenes  on  his  various  journeys  through  the  country  were  extem- 
porary. It  is  true  that  on  one  occasion  when  he  deemed  it  important 
(XVIII,  174-179),  Demosthenes  incorporates  into  his  oration  a  former 
speech  which  might  be  thought  to  have  been  extemporary  (see  n.  261). 
Doubtless  Demosthenes  prepared  for  all  the  emergencies  he  could  foresee, 
but  he  must  have  delivered  a  great  many  speeches  during  periods  of  which 
we  have  no  record.  A  possible  explanation  of  this  lack  of  speeches  might 
be  that  they  were  extemporary  and  so  were  lost.  Such  might  be  some  of 
the  speeches  implied  in  XVIII,  45;  69;  72;  86;  88;  136;  141;  143;  179;  191; 
214;  244-245;  320,  and  elsewhere;  ^schines,  III,  63;  71;  97;  145-146;  150; 
160;  166;  167. 

^  Plut.  Dem.  c.  8 :  Demosthenes  would  admit  that  his  speeches  were 
neither  entirely  prepared  beforehand,  nor  yet  wholly  extemporary.  Cf. 
also  c.  9:  his  retorts  and  rejoinders  were  often  extemporary.  Compare 
Longinus(?)  de  Sublim.  (Rhet.  Gr.  I,  273,  19,  Sp.)  ;  Plut.  Pol.  Praec.  803C; 
Dem.  c.  II.  Quint.  VI,  3,  33,  says  care  should  be  taken  that  jests  should 
never  seem  premeditated.  Extemporary  retorts  are  recorded  by  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  (XVIII,  i,  4)  of  the  Emperor  Julian;  by  Philostratus  {Vit. 
Soph.  I,  2,  i)  of  Leo  of  Byzantium;  by  Pliny  the  Elder  {N.  H.  I)  of 
Plancus. 

^^  If  we  are  to  acknowledge  the  "law  of  three  short  syllables"  in 
Demosthenes,  that  orator's  preparation  must  have  been  verbal  preparation 


128  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

among  the  popular  pleaders,^^^  and  Demosthenes  thus  answers  it  in 
his  reply  to  a  supposed  taunt  by  Midias :  "Probably  he  will  also  say 
something  of  this  kind — that  all  my  speech  is  considered  and  pre- 
pared (£ff/.£[JL{jieva  y.a{  xapaffy-euaapieva).^^^  I  admit,  men  of  Athens, 
I  will  not  deny  that  I  have  considered  it  (eff%e<pOat),  aye,  and  got 
it  up  (pi.eiJLeXeTYiy.svat)  as  well  as  I  possibly  could. ^^^  I  were  a 
simpleton  indeed,  if,  after  I  have  suffered,  and  am  still  suffering 
such  injuries,  I  took  no  pains  (Y)|jLeXouv)  about  the  method  of  stat- 
ing them  to  you.  I  maintain,  however,  that  Midias  has  composed 
my  address  (yeYpacpevat)  :  he  that  has  supplied  the  facts  with  which 
the  speech  deals,  may  most  fairly  be  deemed  its  author,  not  he  who 
has  only  considered  (eaxeixpievo?)  or  studied  ([JLspt[jLVi^c7a?)  how  to 
lay  an  honest  case  before  you".^^^ 


of  the  most  minute  sort,  if  the  speeches  we  have  reproduce  at  all  the  speeches 
actually  delivered.  It  was  Blass  (Att.  Bereds.  Ill,  99-i04)  who  first  drew 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Demosthenes,  as  far  as  he  possibly  can,  avoids  the 
consecutive  use  of  three  or  more  short  syllables,  except  when  the  three 
syllables  are  included  in  the  same  word  or  in  a  combination  which  is  virtually 
equivalent  to  one  word,  such  as  a  noun  preceded  by  a  preposition  or  an 
article.     Compare  Cicero,  Orat.  XLIV,  151. 

If  one  believes  that  the  speeches  we  have  are  in  the  main  the  speeches 
delivered,  this  law  would  imply  careful  memorizing  of  the  entire  speech. 
Blass  (III,  248)!  and  Schaefer  (III,  64-65)  believe  that  Demosthenes'  avoid- 
ance of  hiatus  is  an  evidence  of  the  highly  finished  character  of  the  final 
draft  of  the  speeches.  The  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  define  the  rules 
which  govern  the  rhythms  of  Demosthenes'  prose  have  been  anticipated  by 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  (de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  17). 

"°  Plut.  Dem.  c.  8.  Plutarch  elsewhere  seems  to  disapprove  of  Demos- 
thenes' preparation  as  over-elaborate^  at  least  for  statesmen's  speeches: 
Pol.  Praec.  802E-F.  In  jieqi  Svocomag,  16  (534F)  he  speaks  scornfully  of 
those  speakers  who  are  so  extremely  careful  that  they  will  not  allow  two 
vowels  to  come  together. 

^  EOXEfx|LiEva  xal  jiaQaaxEvao|i£va.  For  oxEiiJEig  xai  iTiaQaaxEudg :  studied 
and  prepared  speeches,  see  Plut.  Dem.  c.  10:  K}a\v  xov  yz  ArmaSiiv  Kayxzc, 
d)M,oX6Youv  xfj  (puoEi  %q(X)\xz\o\  dvixTixov  Elvai  xal  jcaQa(p£Q£iv  avToaxEfiid^ovxa 
xdg  xoii  AT]|[xoa^£vovg  axEil^Eig  xal  JiagaaxEudg,  also  Moral.  6C;  844E. 

^  As  a  contrast  to  this  admission  see  H.  W.  Grady's  words  of  his 
celebrated  speech  The  Old  South  and  the  New:  "When  I  found  myself  on 
my  feet,  every  nerve  in  my  body  was  strung  as  tight  as  a  fiddle-string"  etc, 

"'XXI,  191.    This  passage  is  quoted  by  Plutarch,  de  Educat.  Puer.  9. 

Hardwicke,  p.  423,  says  of  Daniel  Webster:  "The  impression  has  been 
current  that  his  great  speeches  were  unstudied.     He  said  on  one  occasion 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 29 

Demosthenes  used  to  affirm  that  it  was  a  more  truly  popular  act 
to  use  premeditation  in  one's  speeches,  such  preparation  being  in  a 


that  he  would  as  soon  think  of  appearing  before  an  audience  half-clothed 
as  half-prepared,  and  at  another  time  he  told  one  of  his  friends  that  he 
would  as  soon  stand  up  and  tell  his  audience  that  he  had  garments  enough 
at  home,  but  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  put  them  on,  as  to  tell  them 
that  he  could  have  made  a  satisfactory  speech,  perhaps,  if  he  had  taken  the 
requisite  pains." 

Commentators  have  long  disputed  over  the  question  whether  the  speech 
against  Midias  was  ever  actually  delivered.  Personally  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  it  was  not.  The  main  evidence  against  its  having  been  delivered  is  the 
statement  of  ^schines  (III,  p.  61,  sees.  52-53;  cf.  also  p.  84)  that  Demos- 
thenes compromised  the  suit  for  thirty  minae  (cf.  also  Ps.-Plut.  844D). 
While  one  must  not  rely  too  implicitly  on  the  testimony  of  ^schines,  he 
would  hardly  have  ventured  to  make  such  a  statement  in  public  if  the  trial 
had  been  carried  to  its  conclusion.  Plutarch  (Dem.  c.  12)  agrees  with 
^schines  and  thinks  that  Demosthenes  compromised  the  suit  through  fear 
of  Midias'  party  leader,  Eubulus. 

H.  Weil  (Demosthenes,  Introd.  p.  xxi)  has  the  following  statement, 
"Plutarque  dit  que  Demosthene  desespera  de  triompher  de  la  ligue  qui 
protegeait  Midias.  Nous  n'avons  pas  la  clef  de  cette  enigme.  Mais  on  pent 
soupQonner,  et  Ton  aime  a  croire,  que  les  malheurs  de  la  patrie  I'ayant 
rapproche  d'Eubule,  Demosthene  fit  taire  ses  haines  personelles  devant  les 
convenances  politiques  et  les  devoirs  du  citoyen."  It  is  quite  possible  that 
Demosthenes  may  have  felt  that  Eubulus  was  doing  good  work  for  the  state 
and  therefore  did  not  wish  to  render  compromise  with  him  impossible. 

Goodwin,  in  his  edition  of  the  speech  (p.  vi)'  says:  "His  (Demosthenes') 
first  and  greatest  struggle  was  to  unite  the  people  at  once  in  opposition  to 
Philip,  and  he  could  not  afford  to  alienate  any  men  of  influence  at  this 
critical  time." 

Dionysius  {Ep.  ad  Ammaeum  I,  4)  speaks  of  it  as  "the  speech  which 
Demosthenes  composed  after  the  vote  of  censure  passed  upon  Midias  by  the 
people,"  where  the  verb  used,  oruvexdlaxo,  seems  to  imply  that  Demosthenes 
wrote  but  did  not  deliver  the  speech.  Isidore  of  Pelusium  {Ep.  IV,  205) 
believes  that  Demosthenes  did  not  compromise  the  suit  through  mercenary 
motives,  but  because  he  feared  a  defeat  due  to  the  power  of  the  other  party. 
Diogenes  Laertius  (VI,  Diog.  6)'  also  refers  to  the  suit  as  having  been 
compromised.  Cf.  Westermann,  A. :  de  Litihus  quas  Demosthenes  oravit  ipse 
(Leipzig,  1834},  25-28;  Boeck,  Comment.  Acad.  Berol.  1818,  CI.  hist.  phil. 
60-100;  Schaefer,  II,  102;  Blass,  III,  I^  238  ff. 

The  strongest  argument  that  the  speech  was  not  delivered  lies  in  the 
apparently  unfinished  character  of  the  oration  itself;  for  example,  the 
repetition  in  sees.  10  and  185,  the  failure  to  give  the  evidence  of  the  gold- 
smith which  was  promised  in  sec.  21,  and  the  apparent  disregard,  in  places, 
of  the  three  short  syllable  law   (cf.  n.  269  p.   127).  Buttman.  in  his  second 


130  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Excursus,  believes  that  there  is  a  lacuna  after  the  evidence  of  the  goldsmith, 
which  was  followed  by  a  series  of  depositions.  If  so,  the  omission  may 
have  been  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  copyists,  Demosthenes  himself  may 
have  omitted  the  sections  when  he  published,  or  the  oration  may  have 
been  published  from  an  imperfect  manuscript.  From  what  is  said  by  the 
anonymous  author  of  the  Second  Argument,  it  would  appear  that  some 
passages  of  the  edited  edition  have  been  lost  (pp.  519,  520,  535),  but  this 
testimony  cannot  be  relied  upon. 

The  statement  in  191,  that  the  speech  has  been  carefully  worked  out, 
cannot  be  taken  as  evidence  that  it  was  delivered.  Doubtless  Demosthenes, 
when  he  wrote  the  speech,  intended  that  it  should  be  delivered,  and  such  a 
statement  would  naturally  find  a  place  in  the  first  draft  of  the  oration.  The 
same  argument  would  hold  good  for  Demosthenes'  expressions  of  indignation 
against  those  who  had  compromised  such  suits,  and  his  determination  not 
to  follow  their  example  (3,  39,  103,  120,  151,  215,  261).  Grote  (Hist.  Gr. 
XI,  479)  suggests  that  "Demosthenes  may  have  delivered  the  discourse  and 
obtained  judgment  in  his  favor;  and  then  afterwards,  when  the  second  vote 
of  the  dicasts  was  about  to  come  on  for  estimation  of  the  penalty,  may  have 
accepted  the  offer  of  the  defendant  to  pay  a  moderate  fine,  in  fear  of 
exasperating  too  far  the  powerful  friends  around  Midias"  (for  a  possible 
case  of  this  sort  cf.  sec.  176  of  the  speech).  Mahaffy  (II,  350)  believes 
that  the  condition  of  the  speech  (cf.  20,  28,  29,  47)  indicates  that  it  was  edited, 
not  by  Demosthenes  himself,  "but  by  pupils  and  admirers,  possibly  by  his 
nephew,  Demochares."  A.  G.  Becker  suggests  that  there  were  legal  doubts 
as  to  whether  the  offense  was  of  a  public  or  a  private  character,  and  there- 
fore Demosthenes,  feeling  not  sure  of  his  ground,  had  an  additional  motive 
for  accepting  the  terms  offered.  The  vote  of  censure  and  the  fact  of  a 
payment  by  Midias,  which  was  practically  a  confession  of  guilt,  may  have 
satisfied  Demosthenes.  Grote's  explanation  would  leave  us  to  suppose  either 
that  we  possess  only  the  first  draft  of  the  speech  which  was  delivered,  or 
else  that  Demosthenes  delivered  the  speech  in  its  present  unfinished  state,  a 
thing  which  he  would  not  be  likely  to  do.  There  is  a  possibility,  however, 
that  the  orator  did  deliver  the  oration  in  this  rough  form,  and  never  wrote  it 
up  for  publication,  for  Photius    (Cod.  265),  speaking  of  the  two  speeches, 

Against  Midias  and  Against  ^schines  says : xai  xivEg  eqpriaav 

ExdxEQOv  \6yo\  £v  TVKOic,  xaxaXeiqp^fivai  dXXa  \xy\  kqoc,  exSooiv  fiiaxEJca^dgdai. 

On  the  Midias  speech  see  Haupt,  O. :  Ueber  die  Midiana  des  Demosthenes, 
Posen,  1857;  Wachendorf,  de  Demosthenis  Midiana,  Neuss,  1879;  Vielhaver, 
C :  de  Demosthenis  Midiana,  Breslau,  1908. 

The  speech  On  the  Corrupy  Embassy,  here  joined  by  Photius  with  the 
speech  against  Midias,  is  also  suspected  of  never  having  been  delivered. 
Dionysius  (Ep.  ad.  Amm.  I,  10)  says :  xov  xax'  'Aioxivou  Xoyov  ovvexdlaxo  ; 
composed  not  delivered  (ajxt\yyE\X2  or  SieOexo).  Idomeneus  and  Ulpian  (in 
annot.  ad  Dem.  or.  d.  f.  I.  p.  402  say  the  trial  actually  took  place  (cf.  Philost. 
Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  2).  Photius  (Cod.  61;  cf.  Cod.  264)'  says  that  ^schines 
was  not  convicted  because  Eubulus  arranged  matters  so  that  the  jurors  got 
up  and  went  out  while  Demosthenes  was  still  speaking  (cf.  Auctor  Epistolae 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I3I 

certain  sense,  a  mark  of  respect  toward  the  people,"*  and  once 
when  Epicles  reproached  him  with  preparing  what  he  had  to  say, 
he  replied:  "I  should  be  ashamed  to  make  an  extemporary  speech 
to  so  great  an  assembly."  ^''^ 


^schineae  XII,  p.  695  R.).  Other  critics  believe  that  the  case  never  came  to 
trial,  but  that  the  speeches  on  both  sides  were  only  published  (Ps.-Plut.  840C; 
Auctor  arg.  ^sch.  II,  p.  314  Bekk. ;  Auctor  arg.  ^sch.  I;  Schol.  ^sch. 
p.  49,  2;  Hermogenes  jieqI  tcov  oxaoecov  p.  28,  ed.  Walz;  Photius,  Cod.  p. 
490;  Blass,  III,  i^  351;  Westermann,  p.  52  ff.  Plutarch  {Dem.  c.  15,  853) 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  doubt  on  the  ground  that  no  mention  of  the 
trial  is  made  in  either  of  the  orations  on  the  Crown.  The  same  view  is  held 
by  A.  G.  Becker  {Demosthenes  als  Staatsmann  und  Redner,  II,  320),  who 
argues  the  matter  at  greater  length.  Kennedy  believes  that  the  evidence  on 
which  they  rely,  being  negative  has  little  force  under  the  circumstances,  for 
the  reason  Auger  gives  and  which  Becker  does  not  answer  in  a  satisfactory 
manner,  namely  that  both  orators  had  cause  to  be  silent:  Demosthenes  had 
lost  the  verdict,  and  .^schines  had  so  small  a  majority  that  his  acquittal 
could  hardly  be  considered  honorable. 

Cf.  also  Schaefer,  A.:  Dem.  und  seine  Zeit,  III,  2,  p.  66;  Weil,  Demos- 
thenes, 234-236;  Grote,  Hist.  Gr.  XI,  525  ff.  and  note;  Rohdewald:  de 
nonnullis  orationum  ^schinis  et  Demosthenis  de  legatione  male  gesta  habit- 
arum  locis  disputatio,  Miinster,  1867 ;  Schmidt,  M. :  Quaestiones  de  Demos- 
thenis et  ^schinis  orationibus  de  falsa  legatione,  1851.  A  speech  might  be 
modified  by  failure  to  get  the  required  number  of  votes:  cf.  Blass  I,  p.  318. 

On  the  speech  On  the  Peace  from  this  point  of  view  see  Blass,  III, 
342,  343,  351. 

"*  Plut.  Dem.  c.  8.  The  audience,  according  to  Plutarch,  seemed  to 
expect  that  an  orator  would  prepare  his  speech.  In  his  essay  on  Listening 
(c.  14,  45D)  he  rebukes  those  who  come  to  listen  to  a  speech  without  any 
preparation  or  consideration,  and  yet  expect  that  what  the  orator  has  to  say 

will  be  prepared  and  premeditated  ( exsivov  \iev  dlioiJaav  ^xeiv 

jtscpQovTixoxa  xal  jiaQEaxevaaM-Evov).  Elsewhere  in  the  same  treatise  (c.  3, 
38E)  he  says  that  such  people  think  that  speaking  requires  study  and  atten- 
tion  (jxa-dTiaiv \ie'kexr\v),  but  listening  does  not  need  either. 

Compare  the  beginning  of  Lord  Brougham's  Inaugural  Address  (Vol.  Ill, 
7^)  :  "I  am  anxious  to  address  you  rather  in  the  form  which  I  now  adopt, 
rather  than  in  the  more  usual  one  of  unpremeditated  discourse.  I  shall  thus 
at  least  prove  that  the  remarks  which  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  make,  are  the 
fruit  of  mature  reflection,  and  that  I  am  unwilling  to  discharge  an  important 
office  in  a  perfunctory  manner." 

^'^'^  Ps.-Plut.  848C :  "alaxwoi!i,'nv  ^ag  av"  eIjiev  "eI  ttiXijcovto)  SrifXQ) 
(TupipovXEijcov  avxooxebi6.t,oi[ii."  The  compiler  adds:  "He  never  put  out  his 
lamp,  that  is,  ceased  polishing  his  orations,  until  he  was  fifty  years  old." 
Cf.  Plut.  Dem.  c.  11. 


132  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  defends  at  some  length  the  incessant 
care  which  Demosthenes  devoted  to  the  perfecting  of  his  works.  The 
critic  urges  that  it  is  not  strange  if  one  who  surpassed  all  his  pre- 
decessors in  oratorical  fame,  should  use  no  thought  or  word  at 
random,  but  should  pay  great  heed  to  the  order  of  his  thoughts  and 
the  grace  of  his  language,  when  he  was  producing  works  for  all 
future  ages,  and  putting  himself  to  the  test  of  envy  and  time.  If 
Isocrates  spent  at  least  ten  years  on  the  Panegyricus,  and  if  the  first 
words  of  Plato's  Republic  were  found  arranged  in  several  different 
ways  in  his  tablets,  we  cannot  wonder  if  Demosthenes  took  pains 
to  attain  perfection,  and  to  avoid  employing  a  single  word  or  thought 
which  he  had  not  weighed.-'^ 

According  to  Demosthenes'  political  rival,  there  was  one  occasion 
on  which  all  his  skill  and  preparation  availed  him  nothing,  ^schines 
tells  us  that  when  Demosthenes  appeared  for  the  first  time  in  the 
presence  of  the  King  of  Macedonia,  whose  projects  he  had  so  often 
denounced  at  home,  his  presence  of  mind  entirely  failed  him;  he 
forgot  the  speech  he  had  written,  and  in  spite  of  some  good-natured 
encouragement  from  Philip,  was  quite  unable  to  deliver  his  ad- 
dress.^'^  While  we  may  grant  that  there  was  exaggeration  on  the 
part  of  yEschines,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  story  rests  on  a  basis 

The  sentence  which  follows  this  account:  "He  delivered  most  of  his 
speeches  extempore,  nature  having  qualified  him  for  it,"  is  supposed  to  have 
been  added  by  some  other  hand,  since  it  contradicts  what  goes  before. 
Another  suggestion  is  that  Demosthenes  may  have  made  many  extemporary 
speeches,  but  only  laboriously  prepared  for  important  occasions  (Jebb,  I, 
p.  Ixxi). 

^^  de  Comp.  Verb.  c.  25.  Dionysius  repeats  this  passage  slightly  altered 
in  de  Dem.  c.  51.  Quintilian  (XII,  9,  15)  quotes  Demosthenes  as  saying  that 
the  orator  will  utter,  so  far  as  his  subject  will  allow,  nothing  but  what  he  has 
written  or  "hewn  into  shape."  On  the  effect  of  Demosthenes'  eloquence  see 
Lucian,  Encom.  Demosth.  32;  Dionys.  H^l.  de  Dem.  c.  22;  Amm.  Marcell. 

XXX.  4, 5. 

^^sch.  II,  34-35,  also  mentioned  by  Philostratus,  Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  2; 
II,  I,  36;  in  II,  32,  2  the  subject  for  an  extemporary  speech  given  by  the 
Emperor  to  a  sophist  is,  6  Aimoo^evTig  im,  xov  ^iKikkov  exjtEOcbv  xal  SeiXiag 
(pEvyiox.  Cf.  Aelian,  Var.  Hist.  VIII,  12;  Longinus,  Ars  Rhet.  (Rhet.  Gr. 
I,  314,  31  Sp). 

A  similar  misfortune  happened  to  Curio:  Cicero,  Brut.  UK,  217;  com- 
pare 218-220. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 33 

of  fact=  It  may  be,  as  Grote  suggests,-'®  ''that  Demosthenes  was 
partially  divested  of  his  oratorical  powers  by  finding  himself  speak- 
ing not  only  before  the  enemy  whom  he  had  so  bitterly  denounced, 
but  surrounded  by  all  the  evidence  of  Macedonian  power,  and  doubt- 
less exposed  to  the  unequivocal  marks  of  well  earned  hatred  from 
those  Macedonians  who  took  less  pains  than  Philip  to  disguise  their 
feelings,"^^^  but  perhaps  in  view  of  the  lack  of  evidence,  it  would  be 
better  to  adopt  Miiller's  more  charitable  opinion,  that  Demosthenes' 
"common  sense  assured  him  that  this  was  not  an  occasion  on  which 
fine  speaking  could  produce  any  practical  results,  and  so  he  contented 
himself  with  a  very  brief  address."  "®^ 

Among  the  contemporaries  of  Demosthenes,  there  are  but  two 
who  claim  ability  as  extemporary  speakers.  I  mean,  of  course, 
/Eschines  and  Demades.-®^ 

Of  Lycurgus  as  a  speaker  not  much  is  known.  Cicero  mentions 
him  as  one  of  the  contemporaries  of  Demosthenes.-®-  He  is  said  to 
have  been  a  pupil  of  Plato,^^^  and  Hyperides  characterizes  him  as 
not  inferior  as  a  speaker  to  anyone  in  the  city.-®*  There  seems  to  be 
but  one  account  of  his  method  of  preparing  his  speeches.  The 
Pseudo-Plutarch  tells  us  that  Lycurgus  was  not  gifted  with  the 
ability  to  speak  extempore ;  that  he  studied  night  and  day,  and  used 
even  to  lie  on  an  uncomfortable  couch  so  that  he  might  rise  earlier 
and  devote  himself  to  his  studies.  So  anxious  was  he  to  note  down 
his  thoughts  as  they  occurred  to  him,  that  writing  materials  were 
always  placed  at  his  bedside.-®^  He  may  even  have  employed 
rhetoricians  to  aid  him  when  he  was  engaged  in  the  composition  of 
his  speeches ;  at  least  he  was  taunted  with  having  done  so,  and  as 
far  as  we  are  able  to  judge,  did  not  deny  the  charge.-®^ 

""'Hist.  Gr.  XI,  530. 

^'Cf..^sch.  II,  32;  33. 

^^  Hist.  Gr.  Lit.  II,  320.  Brougham  suggests  that  Demosthenes'  failure 
may  have  been  due  to  lack  of  time  for  proper  preparation. 

^  On  Demades  see  n.  264. 

^^  Brutus,  IX,  36:  "Huic  (Demosthenes)  Hyperides  proximus  et 
^schines  fuit  et  Lycurgus  et  Dinarchus  et  is,  cuius  nulla  exstant  scripta, 
Demades  aliique  plures." 

'^Diogenes  Laertius  III,  31.  46;  Olympiodorus  ad  Plat.  Gorg.  515  D. 

^  Hyperides  Pro  Euxen.  col.  XXVI-XXVII. 

^^  Pseudo-Plutarch,  842  C-D. 

'^  Pseudo-Plutarch,  842  C. 

The  long  quotations  from  the  poets   found  in  Lycurgus    (sees.  92,   100, 


134  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

^schines,  in  sharp  contrast  to  his  state-rival,  Demosthenes, 
seems  more  than  any  other  professional  orator,  to  have  trusted  to 
extemporary  inspiration.  He  often  taunts  Demosthenes  because  of 
his  rhetorical  skill  and  preparation,^^^  and  Demosthenes,  in  his  turn. 


103,  107,  109,  132)  would  suit  a  speech  prepared  verbatim.  Such  quotations 
seem  to  have  been  part  of  the  orator's  stock-in-trade,  ^schines  before 
giving  a  quotation  from  Hesiod,  has  the  following  statement  (III,  135)  : 
"And  I  myself  will  speak  the  words ;  for  I  think  it  was  for  this  reason  that 
when  we  were  children  we  learned  the  words  of  the  poets,  in  order  that 
when  we  were  men  we  might  make  use  of  them."  Other  passages  in  which 
^schines  quotes  from  memory  are  I,  128,  129,  144,  151,  152;  II,  144,  158; 
III,  184-185. 

There  is  evidence,  however,  that  such  quotations,  as  well  as  oracles,  laws, 
and  epigrams,  were  read  for  the  speaker  by  the  clerk  (Dem.  XVIII,  289; 
XIX,  70;  247;  255;  297;  XXI,  8,  10;  ^sch.  I,  148;  149;  150;  III,  112;  190;  so 
in  the  Antidosis,  with  the  exception  of  sec.  194,  the  extracts  from  Isocrates' 
other  speeches  are  read  by  the  clerk;  cf.  Isocr.  XV,  59;  65;  72).  The  read- 
ing of  passages  by  the  clerk  would  suit  an  extemporary  speech  still  less  than 
quoting  from  memory. 

In  the  Lycurgus  passages  there  is  no  indication  of  reading  either  by  the 
orator  himself  or  by  the  clerk.  The  supposition  therefore  is  that  Lycurgus 
memorized  the  passages  and  delivered  them  himself. 

^"11,  i;  4;  114;  157  (compare  Dem.  XVIII,  280)  ;  III,  142;  153;  157;  167; 
209-210;  215;  229;  233;  cf.  Blass,  III,  64-66. 

^schines'  demand  (III,  202)  that  Demosthenes  make  his  defense  in  the 
same  order  as  the  accusation,  may  have  been  designed  to  embarrass  Demos- 
thenes if  the  speech  he  had  prepared  and  was  intending  to  use  was  arranged 
in  a  different  way  (cf.  Quint.  Ill,  6,  3).  The  objection  given  by  Demosthenes 
(XVIII,  2)  to  this  attempt  to  prescribe  an  order  to  him,  was  so  reasonable 
that  it  allowed  an  excellent  starting-point  for  the  defense.  Cf.  Quint.  VII, 
I,  2.  Whately  {Elements  of  Rhetoric,  c.  I)  in  speaking  of  the  importance 
of  arrangement,  says:  "-(^schines  strongly  urged  the  judges  (in  the  celebrated 
contest  for  the  Crown)  to  confine  his  adversary  to  the  same  order  in  his 
reply  to  the  charges  brought,  which  he  himself  had  observed  in  bringing 
them  forward.  Demosthenes,  however,  was  far  too  skillful  to  be  thus  en- 
trapped; and  so  much  importance  does  he  attach  to  this  point,  that  he  opens 
his  speech  with  a  most  solemn  appeal  to  the  judges  for  an  impartial  hear- 
ing; which  implies,  he  says,  not  only  a  rejection  of  prejudice,  but  no  less  also 
a  permission  for  each  speaker  to  adopt  whatever  arrangement  he  should  think 
fit.  And  accordingly  he  proceeds  to  adopt  one  very  different  from  that  which 
his  antagonist  had  laid  down ;  for  he  was  no  less  sensible  than  his  rival  that 
the  same  arrangement  which  is  most  favorable  to  one  side  is  likely  to  be 
least  favorable  to  the  other." 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 35 

^schines'  seeming  knowledge  of  Demosthenes'  speech  (III,  54,  57,  189, 
216,  225,  228,  257)  means  no  more  than  that  the  orator  in  composing  his 
attack,  dealt  with  the  points  which  his  own  sense  and  the  gossip  of  the 
town  had  told  him  were  to  be  made  by  his  opponent.  No  knowledge  of  the 
actual  speech  of  Demosthenes  is  implied.  So  Oration  I  of  ^schines  is 
composed  along  the  general  lines  which  he  had  heard  were  to  be  taken  by 
the  other  side  (I,  117).  Compare  Dem.  XIX,  80. 

Scholars  have  debated  much  over  the  question  whether  the  two 
orations  on  the  Crown,  in  their  present  form,  were  the  speeches  actually 
delivered  at  the  trial.  W.  Fox,  Kranzrede  dies  Demosthenes,  p.  214,  maintains 
that  in  the  present  form  of  the  two  orations  on  the  Crown,  we  have  not  only 
in  the  main,  but  in  detail,  the  orations  prepared,  memorized,  and  delivered 
at  the  trial.  He  believes  that  there  may  have  been  in  addition  a  slight 
amount  of  extemporized  matter.  Other  scholars  have  regarded  with  sus- 
picion passages  in  ^schines  anticipating  Demosthenes,  and  passages  of 
refutation  to  which  there  is  no  corresponding  passage  in  the  rival  orator, 
as  pointing  to  addition  or  suppression  when  the  speakers  revised  their  ora- 
tions; for  example,  yEsch.  13-16,  24-30,  35-48,  54-56,  84,  159-167,  i77  ff-, 
189  (cf.  Dem.  XVIII,  319),  197-199,  216,  225  ff.  (cf.  Dem.  XVIII,  243),  228. 
A.  Schaefer,  Demosthenes  und  seine  Zeit,  III,  Beitrdge  p.  72  ff.,  believes  that 
the  trend  of  each  orator's  argument  might  well  be  known  to  the  other  through 
gossip  and  by  the  arguments  made  at  the  preliminary  hearing.  While  deny- 
ing that  such  anticipation  of  similes  as  appears  in  ^schines  (189,  215,  225, 
228)  could  occur,  and  must  have  been  added  after  the  trial  when  the 
speech  was  prepared  for  publication,  he  thinks  that  we  have  the  orations  in 
the  main  as  they  were  delivered.  A.  Kirchhoff,  Ahhandlungen  der  Berliner 
Akademie,  1875,  P-  64  ff.,  is  very  severe  on  Demosthenes'  speech  in  regard 
to  revision,  but  makes  fewer  changes  in  that  of  ^schines.  B.  Cammerer, 
de  duplici  Recensione  Orationis  ^schineae  contra  Ctesiphontem  habitae 
(Arnstadt,  1876),  believes  that  yEschines  made  large  additions  to  his  speech 
when  he  revised  it.  His  attempts  to  seem  extempore  (57,  176,  177)  are  merely 
conventional.  Kirchhoff  believes  that  Demosthenes'  speech  as  we  have  it,  is 
a  combination  of  two  speeches :  one  "sketched"  when  first  there  was  danger 
of  a  trial,  and  the  other  the  speech  which  was  actually  delivered  six  years  later. 
Blass,  III,  2,  p.  180  ff.,  thinks  that  in  ^schines'  speech  we  have  the  draft  of 
the  oration  as  drawn  up  in  S3^,  emended  in  330  by  new  suggestions,  and 
still  further  worked  over  after  the  trial  had  actually  taken  place,  and  before 
the  speech  was  published.  Some  of  the  points  he  criticizes  might  be  due  to 
the  fact  that  ^schines  was  less  skillful  than  Demosthenes  in  preparing  and 
revising. 

Cf .  also  Nadrowski,  R. :  de  genuina  Demosthenis  pro  Corona  orationis 
forma,  Thorn,  1880 ;  Fox,  W. :  Analyse  und  WUrdigung  der  Rede  von  Kranze, 
Innsbruck,  1863. 

Demosthenes'  Third  Philippic  (Or.  IX)  has  been  handed  down  in  two 
recensions.  The  shorter  and  better  one  is  represented  by  the  oldest  manu- 
script, Parisian  S,  only,  the  other  by  all  the  rest.    Blass,  III,^  304,  believes 


136  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

constantly  ascribes  the  success  of  his  opponent  to  his  great  natural 
powers  and  his  strong,  clear  and  carefully  cultivated  voice. ^^^  Some, 
according  to  Philostratus,^^^  even  attribute  to  ^schines  the  invention 
(supY]pL05)  of  extemporary  speech.  Philostratus  himself,  while  ac- 
knowledging ^schines'  ability,  assigns  the  beginning  of  the  practice 
to  Gorgias.  As  we  have  seen,  Gorgias'  boast  that  he  was  able  to 
speak  on  any  subject  at  a  moment's  notice,  rested  on  a  basis  of  care- 
fully prepared  commonplaces. ^^^  There  is  no  evidence  that  ^schin- 
es'  ability  was  dependent  on  any  such  aid.  According  to  Suidas  "he 
was  the  first  of  all  men  to  have  the  name  of  speaking  'in  a  god-like 
manner,'  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  extemporized  as  one  who  was  in- 
spired."^^^  Philostratus  says  he  spoke  "as  those  who  utter  oracles."-®^ 
That  this  ability  was  a  natural  gift,  probably  improved  by  practice, 
is  usually  conceded.^^^     ^schines  may  have  had  some  training  in 


that  the  shorter  version  was  a  revised  edition  prepared  by  the  orator  himself. 
This,  if  so,  would  be  another  proof  of  Demosthenes'  careful  and  thorough 
revision  of  his  speeches.  Both  versions  are  thoroughly  Demosthenic.  See 
also  Spengel,  Ahhandl.  f.  Munich  Acad.,  1863,  at  the  end  of  his  first  article 
on  Demosthenes'  public  speeches. 

288  XVIII,  127,  132,  259,  276-77,  280  (cf.  yEsch.  II,  170),  285,  291,  308,  313; 
XIX,  126,  199,  206,  208,  209,  216,  336,  337-340;  cf.  A.  Schaefer  Dem.  u.  seine 
Zeit,  I,  215,  3;  Blass,  III,  B,  222.  ^schines  warns  his  hearers  against  the 
professional  artifices  of  Demosthenes,  III,  200;  I,  170,  and  describes  himself 
as  an  unprofessional  speaker:  II.  181-182;  III,  228. 

"^  Proem  ad  Vit.  Soph.  4. 

^  Cf .  p.  99  ff.  Philostr.  proem,  ad  Vit.  Soph.  4. 

^^  Suidas,  s.  n. :  JtQcoxog  [AIoxivt]?]  hk  Jidvxcov  to  "deicog  ^eyeiv"  Tixovae, 
fiia  TO  axeSia^ELv  wg  ev^ouaicav.  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  4:  to  yoiq  ^ei(os 
Xeveiv   ovjtco    ^aev    E;iExa)Qia08    aoq)iaTa)v   ojiovSaig,    dii'    Alaxivou    6'    TiQ|aT0, 

d£0(pOQT|TCp      OQILlfi      dvTOOXESld^OVTOg,      oSaJTEQ      ol     XOVC,      %Qr[G\lO\}C,      dvOJrVEOVTE?. 

^schines  thought  well  of  his  own  gifts:  II,  41;  III,  228;  cf.  also  Dem. 
XVIII,  242;  XIX,  339  ff. 

""' Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  4;  cf.  also  Photius,  Cod.  61,  and  67; 
Caecilius  of  Calacte  (ap.  .^sch.  p.  5  Sch.)  ;  Dionys.  Hal.  c.  35,  p.  206;  iud. 
"^^t-  V,  5 ;  the  Scholiast  on  ^schines  says  his  oratory  has  power  and  facility 
such  as  would  come  from  nature  and  private  study:  \izkixr\c,  dqpavovg  i.  e. 
not  under  a  master;  cf.  Hermog.  de  Fig.  II,  c.  11;  Dio  Chrys.  XVIII,  11. 
Cf.  Schaefer,  Dem.  I,  229;  Sauppe,  O.  A.  II,  p.  26. 

^  Critics  are  divided  as  to  whether  ^schines'  speech  to  the  Amphictyons, 
which  created  so  much  excitement  (yEsch.  Ill,  122;  Dem.  XVIII,  149),  and 
from  which  he  gives  a  quotation  (III,  1 19-122),  was  prepared  or  extemporary, 
-^schines  says  (III,  119)  of  the  clerk,  d|xa  bk  dvayiYvcoaxEiv  exeA-euov  auTOig 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 37 

his  youth, ^^*  but  probably  never  enjoyed  any  extensive  schooUng 
by  rhetoricians.^®^  His  reply  to  the  Rhodians,  when  they  asked  him 
to  teach  them  the  art  of  rhetoric,  that  he  did  not  know  it  himself, 
may  well  be  true,^®^    He  was,  as  it  seems,  an  orator  with  an  extra- 


xriv  jLiavxeiav  xoC  ^eov,  which  Schaefer  regards  as  proof  that  ^JEschines'  speech 
was  not  the  result  of  a  sudden  impulse  as  he  seems  to  imply,  119:  d-KOvoag 

be   ovxo)   JtaQ(]o|uv^v, and     ejtfiXdE     68     M,ot    im,    xi]v    yvwhtiv 

M-vTiadfivai  x.xA.  but  that  he  had  prepared  it  and  provided  the  necessary 
documents  (cf.  Dem.  XVIII,  149).  A  burst  of  extemporary  eloquence  might 
be  expected  from  ^schines,  and  as  Weidner  argues,  against  Schaefer's  view, 
such  important  documents  as  the  one  cited,  concerning  the  Delphic  god, 
would  surely  be  close  at  hand,  and  the  clerk  might  procure  and  read  them 
after  a  very  short  time.  It  might  be  argued  from  ^schines'  repeating  part 
of  the  speech  that  it  was  prepared,  but  he  only  claims  to  give  the  substance, 
II,  122:  xoiaOxa  xai  Jtgog  xouxoig  exEpa  jioX^d  8i£|E>.^6vxog  epiov  >c.  x.  A..  Tn 
like  manner,  the  other  speeches  mentioned  as  his  were  probably  extemporary. 
An  abstract  of  his  speech  to  the  assembly  in  June,  B.  C.  346,  when  Philip 
had  reached  Thermopylae  (cf.  Dem.  XVIII,  35)  is  given  by  Demosthenes 
(XIX,  19  ff.),  and  ^schines  replies  to  it  (II,  119  ff.). 

His  speech  before  the  Athenians  is  reproduced  in  summary  in  II,  75  ff. ; 
cf.  Dem.  XIX,  15. 

Other  speeches  by  him  are  mentioned  in  ^sch.  II,  41 ;  114;  III,  71 ;  146; 
215 ;  Dem.  XVIII,  35-36. 

Cf.  Philostratus,  proem  ad  Vit.  Soph.  4,  where  it  is  stated  that  ^schines 
spoke  extemporaneously  as  ambassador,  as  the  defender  of  anyone  in  court, 
and  when  he  made  an  address  to  the  people. 

His  speech  On  the  Embassy  was  probably  not  delivered,  but  written  and 
published  as  a  defense  of  his  policy  and  character  (Auct.  arg.  ^sch.  II; 
Plut,  Dem.  c.  15;  Hermog.  K£qi  xcov  oxao.  p.  28  ed.  Walz)  although  Schaefer, 
Thirlwall,  and  others  think  otherwise.  Cf.  Busse,  R. :  de  duplici  recensione 
orationis  quae  est  de  Falsa  Legatione,  Berlin,  1880. 

On  his  speech  Against  Timarchus  see  the  anonymous  Second  Argument. 
Compare  n.  287. 

^^  Quint.  II,  17,  12-13. 

^'We  are  told  on  somewhat  doubtful  authority  that  he  was  a  pupil  of 
Plato,  Alcidamas,  Isocrates,  and  even  of  Socrates :  Ps.-Plut.  840  B ;  Philostr. 
Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  4;  Phot.  Cod.  61,  and  264;  Suidas,  s.  n.  The  Scholiast  on 
^sch.  II,  I,  gives  Demetrius  of  Phalerum  as  authority  for  the  connection 
with  Plato  and  Socrates,  but  Apollonius  {Vit.  ^sch.  6)'  says  this  is  a  mistake 
due  to  confusion  with  vEschines  of  Eleusinia  who  is  said  to  have  written  a 
rhetorical  xexvy]  ;  cf.  Diog.  Laert.  II,  64;  Athen.  XIII,  93;  Schaefer,  I,  229. 

-""Ps.-Plut.  840D.  On  ^schines'  school  at  Rhodes  see  Blass,  III,  B, 
1.38-139.     Westermann    (Gesch.  d.  Bereds.   I,  81)    regards  ^schines  as  the 


138  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

ordinary  natural  gift  improved  by  practice.  According  to  Philostrat- 
us/^''  he  left  written  speeches  behind  him  in  order  that  he  might  not 
be  far  surpassed  by  the  laboriously  prepared  orations  of  Demosthe- 
nes. It  was  only  in  his  exile,  if  we  may  believe  the  often  repeated 
story  of  his  reading  of  the  speech  to  the  Rhodians^^^  and  his  sub- 
sequent comment  on  Demosthenes,  that  he  acknowledged  the  su- 
periority of  his  rival. "°^ 

Of  the  last  two  Attic  orators,  Hyperides  and  Dinarchus,  little 
need  be  said.  Hyperides  was  preferred  by  some  to  Demosthenes,'^*^^ 
and  was  famous  for  his  wit,^^^  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  de- 
livered an  extemporary  speech.  The  story  is  told  that  in  leisure 
moments  he  drew  up  several  declarations  against  Demosthenes,  and 
that  Demosthenes,  on  coming  to  see  him  when  he  was  ill,  found  him 
with  the  book  in  his  hand.  At  this  Demosthenes  expressed  his  dis- 
pleasure, and  Hyperides  replied :  "This  shall  hurt  no  one  who  is  my 
friend,  but  will  keep  the  one  who  is  my  enemy  from  doing  aught 
against  me."^^^  It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to  draw  a  conclusion  from 
one  instance  only,  but  this  evidence,  such  as  it  is,  would  show  that 
Hyperides  prepared  himself  for  emergencies. 

In  the  case  of  Dinarchus,  with  whom  Attic  oratory  ends,^^^  ex- 
temporary speech  is  practically  out  of  the  question.    As  a  metic  ^*^*  he 

founder  of  the  Rhodian  school  of  eloquence.  Cf.  Quint.  XII,  10,  19;  Philostr. 
Vit.  Soph.  I,  18,  2;  Plut.  Dem.  c.  34;  Photius,  Cod.  61,  and  264;  Schaefer, 
III,  266  n. 

^  Proem,  ad  Vit.  Soph.  4. 

"*  Ps.-Plut.  840D  (dvEYvo)). 

"'^For  this  story  see  Ps.-Plut.  840D-E;  Cicero,  de  Or.  Ill,  56,  2^3; 
Quint.  XI,  3,  7;  Pliny,  Ep.  II,  3,  10;  IV,  5,  i;  Schol.  ad  ^sch.  Or.  II,  i,  p. 

5  Sch. ;  Phot.  Cod.  61,  7-10;  Cod.  264  (ejieSeilaxo)  ;  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  18, 

6  (dvavvou^)  ;  Val.  Max.  VIII,  c.  10,  ext.  i ;  Pliny,  A^.  H.  VII,  31  (30). 

'^Ps.-PIut.  849D;  Longinus(?)i  de  Suhlim,  34  ff.  On  Hyperides  see 
also  Ps.-Plut.  848D;  Diodorus  XVIII,  3;  Blass,  III,  B,  1-72. 

^"*Long.(?)  de  Suhlim.  34,  2;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  13,  58;  II,  23,  94;  III, 
7,  28;  Brut.  XVII,  67;  Acad.  II,  10;  Quint.  X,  i,  77.  He  is  said  by  some  to 
have  been  a  pupil  of  Isocrates  and  Plato:  Ps.-Plut.  848D;  Diog.  Laert. 
Ill,  46;  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  5;  Athen.  VIII,  342C;  Suidas. 

"^  Ps.-Plut.  849E-F;  his  funeral  speech,  Ps.-Plut.  850A;  Dem.  XVIII, 
221,  27. 

'""Croiset,  IV,  650;  Jebb,  II,  373. 

""^Dionys.  Hal.  de  Dinarch.  c.  3 ;  c.  2. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 39 

was  barred  from  public  debates.  His  three  extant  orations  were 
all  written  for  prosecutors  in  the  affair  of  Harpalus.^^^'*  The  only 
speech  he  ever  delivered  in  person  was  that  against  his  faithless  host 
Proxenus,^^^  and  there  is  no  ground  for  believing  that  this  could 
have  been  extemporary. 

Before  leaving  Greek  orators  of  the  classical  period,  it  might  be 
well  to  consider  one  class  of  evidence  which  shows  perhaps  better 
than  anything  else  that  many  of  these  speeches  were  the  result  of 
verbal  premeditation.     I  mean  the  repetition  of  striking  passages. 

The  ancients  seem  to  have  been  firm  believers  in  the  maxim,  to 
Y.ofkdq  skeiv  axa?  xeptYtYvsiat,  h\c,  Be  oOx  svSexsxat.^^^  An  orator 
will  repeat  in  one  speech  passages  from  some  other  speech  of  his  own, 
sometimes  verbatim,^"^  and  at  times  with  slight  changes.  This  he 
had  a  perfect  right  to  do  of  course,  but  the  question  assumes  a  differ- 
ent aspect  when  we  come  to  consider  passages  taken  bodily  by  one 
author  from  another.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  so-called  "commonplaces 
of  thought,"  these  were  of  course  public  property  and  at  the  service 
of  any  orator  who  might  choose  to  make  use  of  them,^^^  but  when 

'°^  Ps.-Plut.  850C ;  but  see  also  Suidas ;  s.  v.  IlQaYnaxEia. 

'"^Ps.-Plut.  850D-E;  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Dimrch.  p.  113.  Cf.  Plato,  Gorg. 
498E  with  the  Scholiast.  This  was  his  first  appearance  in  a  law-court: 
Dionys.  Hal.  p.  635 ;  p.  647 ;  Hermog.  mqi  ISecov  H,  5,  p.  384,  Walz. 

^"^Theon.  Progym.  c.  i  (Rhet.  Gr.  II,  62,  Sp.)  disputes  this.  Cf.  Broug- 
ham, p.  387  for  the  effect  of  such  repetitions  on  a  modern  audience. 

""^For  example,  see  Antiphon,  de  caede  Herod.  14,  and  de  Chor.  2. 

^According  to  Cicero  {Brut.  XII,  46),  who  quotes  Aristotle  as  his 
authority,  Protagoras  composed  a  number  of  dissertations  on  such  leading 
and  general  topics  as  were  later  called  "commonplaces".  His  example  was 
followed  by  Gorgias  and  Antiphon.  Lysias  is  also  said  to  have  composed 
a  collection  (cf.  Siiss,  pp.  lo-ii).  These  elaborately  worked-out  topics  were 
quoted  verbatim.  They  formed  part  of  the  intellectual  training  as  well  in 
Rome  (Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  13,  56;  I,  31,  141;  II,  27,  118;  Brut.  LXXVIII, 
271)  as  in  Greece  (for  example  in  the  school  of  Gorgias).  Cf.  Arist.  Soph. 
Elench.  c.  34;  Theon,  Rhet.  Gr.  II,  65,  Sp.  Quintilian  (II,  i,  11-12)  says 
that  such  commonplaces  mix  themselves  with  the  inmost  substance  of  causes, 
and  recommends  preparation  of  them.  Later  (II,  4,  27-33)  he  objects  to 
these  carefully  memorized  topics,  which  are  fitted,  like  ornaments,  on  to 
extemporary  speeches,  on  the  ground  that  they  become  displeasing  to  the 
audience  when  heard  over  and  over.  Furthermore,  they  are  often  used, 
not  because  they  are  wanted,  or  apply  to  the  case,  but  because  they  are 
ready. 

Cicero  drew  up  a  treatise  on  these  on  the  basis  of  Aristotle's  work 
{ad  Fam.  VII,  19,  20;  Top.  c.  i,  5,  and  the  end  of  the  preface  to  the  Para- 


140  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

one  finds  a  passage  of  one  orator  repeated  verbatim  or  with  such 
slight  changes  that  the  passage  is  not  materially  affected,  it  seems  a 
clear  indication  of  preparation,  practically  of  memorization.  The 
first  instance  where  such  repetition  occurs  is  found  in  the  works  of 
Andocides  and  Eysias.    Parts  of  the  Prooemium  ^^°  of  Andocides' 

doxesy  to  which  the  "fire  and  sword"  topic  may  have  belonged  {ad  Att. 
II,  I,  i;  I,  14,  3;  Brut.  298),  and  a  collection  is  ascribed  to  Hortensius 
(Quint.  II,  I,  ii)l  Such  "commonplaces",  which  are  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  commonplaces  of  thought,  the  substance  of  which  has  often  been 
used,  were  no  doubt  a  great  help  to  the  orator. 

Commonplaces  in  general  are  discussed  by  Aristotle,  Rhet.  II,  18,  3-5; 
II,  23;  Auctor  ad  Heren.  II,  5;  13;  14;  22;  24;  26;  48;  49;  Cicero,  de  Invent. 
II,  48  fl.;  de  Or.  Ill,  27,  106;  Orat.  XV,  47;  72;  95;  118;  126;  Quint.  II, 
I,  11-12;  II,  4,  27-33;  V,  12,  1S-16;  Rhet.  ad  Alex.  cc.  XXXV-XXXVII; 
Theon.  Rhet.  Gr.  II,  106  Sp.;  also  II,  32  ff. 

Blass  suggests  (II,  458)  that  the  treatise  on  rhetoric  ascribed  to  Isaeus 
(Ps.-Plut.  839F;  cf.  Dionys.  ad  Amm.  p.  722U.  and  R.)  may  have  been  a 
collection  of  commonplaces. 

The  treatise  of  Hermagoras  may  have  been  useful  for  this  purpose : 
Cicero,  Brut.  LXXVIII,  271.  On  this  work  see  Volkmann,  Rhetorik,  p.  5 ; 
20  ff. ;  Blass,  Gr.  Bereds.  84-88;  Jebb,  II,  444-445. 

On  Cicero's  Topica  see  Brandis,  Rhein.  Mus.  Ill,  547;  Klein,  J.:  de 
fontibus  Top.  Cic.  (1844);  Hammer,  C,  Bursian,  Jahres.,  XIV,  200;  XXII, 
218. 

'^"Collections  of  prooemia  and  epilogues  were  composed  by  orators  to 
be  used  as  they  might  need  them.  The  first  known  writer  of  such  a  collec- 
tion was  Cephalus  (Suidas,  s.  n.)i  who  lived  but  a  little  while  before  Anti- 
phon  (cf.  also  Tzetz.  Chil.  VI,  c.  34;  the  one  mentioned  in  Athen.  592  C  is 
probably  a  later  sophist,  Ruhnken,  p.  xlii).  There  followed  the  collection 
of  Antiphon,  of  which  examples  are  quoted  by  Suidas  (s.  v.  aiiAa,  alodecr&ai, 
\jiOxih\Q6c,.  We  hear  of  such  a  collection  by  Thrasymachus  (Athen.  X,  416A) 
and  Lysias  (cf,  p.  16,  n.  45).  One  book  of  Theophrastus'  treatise  on  rhet- 
oric was  devoted  to  prooemia  (Diog.  Laert.  V,  48;  Proleg.  in  Hermog.  p. 
14),  and  Hermogenes  speaks  of  Critias'  Jigooiniai  STiM-TiYOQixai.  A  collec- 
tion is  attributed  to  Demosthenes,  which  Harpocration  and  Stobaeus  recog- 
nize as  genuine.  Fabricius  says :  "a  Demosthenes  per  otium  elaborata, 
quibus  in  tempore  uteretur".  The  prooemia  are  probably  spurious  (Pollux, 
VI,  143),  and  were  collected,  no  doubt,  by  some  unknown  compiler  who  took 
some  examples  from  Demosthenes  (cf .  Dem.  IV,  and  Exord.  I ;  I,  and  III ; 
XIV,  and  VII;  XVI,  and  VIII;  XV,  and  XXVII),  and  some  from  other 
writers,  or  he  may  have  added  a  few  himself.  Cf.  Blass,  283-287;  Schaefer, 
Dem.  u.  seine  Zeit,  III,  Ap.  p.  129;  Mahaffy,  II,  339;  also  Uhle,  P.:  de 
prooemiorum  Demosthenis  origine  (1885);  Reichenberger,  S. :  Demosthenis 
de  collectione  prooemiorum  (1886)  ;  May,  J.:  Zur  Kritik  der  Prooemien  des 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I4I 

Speech  On  the  Mysteries  (sees.  1-7)  occur  with  slight  variation  in 
Lysias'  On  the  Estate  of  Aristophanes  (2-5).  Isocrates,  too,  used  a 
part  of  the  same  material,^^^  but  with  much  greater  changes.  That 
such  a  practice  was  frequent  in  ancient  times,  I  think  we  are  justi- 
fied in  inferring  from  a  passage  in  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus.^^^ 
After  observing  that  among  two  hundred  genuine  speeches  of  Lysias, 
no  fixed  use  of  any  commonplaces,  even  in  the  prooemium,  can  be 
found,  the  critic  adds :  "And  yet  even  those  who  have  written  only 
a  few  speeches  are  found  to  have  suffered  this  misfortune,  I  mean  of 

Demosthenes  (Durlach,  1905)  ;  Swoboda,  R. :  de  Demosthenis  quae  feruntur 
prooemis   (1887),  and  others. 

Apsines  wrote  a  xexvr]  'qtitoqixti  'jieqI  jiqooi|xiou,  (cf.  Spengel,  Art. 
Script.,  iio-iii),  and  Anaximenes  (p.  4  ed.  Sp.)  discusses  the  exordium  in 
detail  (cf.  also  Rhet.  Gr.  Ill,  470,  Sp.).  Mahaffy  believes  (II,  230)  that  of 
Isocrates'  Epistles,  I,  VI,  and  VIII,  "are  mere  proems  to  political  advices, 
and  evidently  published  as  specimens  by  the  author." 

Cicero  possessed  a  collection  of  these  useful  introductions.  He  sent 
Atticus  his  treatise  de  Gloria  with  an  exordium  prefixed  which  he  had 
already  used  for  the  Third  Book  of  the  Academics.  When  he  discovered 
his  mistake,  he  sent  Atticus  a  new  exordium,  and  begged  him  to  take  out 
the  other  and  put  the  new  one  on  {ad  Att.  XVI,  6,  4).  Cf.  Quint.  IV,  i,  8; 
Tac.  Dial.  c.  20,  i,  Messallae  prooemia. 

In  this  connection  the  Florida  of  Apuleius  must  also  be  mentioned. 
This  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  sort  of  Anthology  from  the  orations  of 
Apuleius,  collected  either  by  himself,  or  some  follower  of  his.  The  more 
probable  explanation  is  that  the  book  is  a  collection  of  passages  which  the 
author  intended  to  use  as  prooemia  to  declamations,  or  as  bits  to  be  worked 
into  extemporaneous  speeches   (cf.  p.  173). 

Quintilian,  in  discussing  the  exordium  (III,  9,  8  ff.),  does  not  believe 
that  the  exordium  should  be  written  last,  after  the  whole  speech  has  been 
prepared,  as  Antonius  does  in  Cicero's  de  Oratore  (II,  78,  315).  This 
practice  would  be  harmful  if  the  orator  had  no  time  to  write  his  speech. 
If  he  has  the  necessary  time,  he  is  to  contemplate  his  material  in  the  order 
in  which  the  different  parts  of  the  speech  would  naturally  come,  and  then 
write  his  speech  in  the  order  in  which  he  is  to  deliver  it.  If  the  orator 
can  derive  his  exordium  from  the  pleading  of  his  opponent,  it  will  gain 
him  the  confidence  of  the  audience,  and  even  though  the  rest  of  his  speech 
be  written  and  carefully  studied,  an  extemporary  exordium  will  give  an 
air  of  spontaneity  to  the  whole  (IV,  i,  54;  cf.  also  IV,  i,  56-58).  Com- 
pare Cicero's  treatment  of  the  subject,  de  Or.  II,  77,  315-325- 

^^Or.  XV. 

^  de  Lys.  c.  17.  Compare  de  Isaeo,  c.  7  ff.  Cf.  Girard,  L' Eloquence 
Attique,  p.  16  ff. 


142  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

falling  into  the  repetition  of  commonplaces ;  for  I  say  nothing  of  the 
fact  that  almost  all  of  them  take  the  things  which  have  been  sadxi  by 
others  and  consider  it  no  shameful  act  to  do  so."^^^  In  spite  of 
Dionysius,  however,  in  this  case  Lysias  seems  to  have  "borrowed." 
The  question  is,  did  he  borrow  from  Andocides  or  did  they  both 
take  the  material  of  some  third  person  and  alter  it  to  suit  their  views  ? 
Jebb  ^^*  believes  that  the  whole  prooemium  was  the  work  of  Andoci- 
des and  that  Lysias  abridged  it.  Blass,  on  the  contrary,  believes,  with 
more  reason,  that  both  Andocides  and  Lysias  used  a  prooemium 
written  by  some  third  person  in  which  Andocides  interpolated  some 
matter  of  his  own  (sees.  3-6).  The  original  prooemium  Blass  at- 
tributes to  Antiphon.^^^ 

In  the  sections  where  Andocides,  Lysias  and  Isocrates  use  com- 
mon matter  Isocrates  agrees  with  Andocides  rather  than  with  Lysias. 
Compare  Andoc.  I,  i,  Lys.  XIX,  2,  Isocr.  XV,  17  (cf.  also  Clem. 
Alex.  Strom.  VI,  p.  748)  ;  Andoc.  I,  6,  Lys.  XIX,  2-3 ;  Andoc.  I,  7, 
Lys.  XIX,  4-5,  Isocr.  XV,  17-19;  Andoc.  I,  i ;  Lys.  XIX,  11 ;  Isocr. 
XVI,  7,  Andoc.  I,  9,  Lys.  Frag.  70  (Th.)  ;  Lys.  XVIII,  3,  Isocr.  XVI 
21;  Lys.  XXIII,  4,  Isocr.  XVI,  5;  Lys.  XVIII,  4,  Isocr.  XVI, 
46;  Lys.  II,  73,  Lys.  X,  28;  Lys.  X,  7,  XI,  4;  Lys.  XIII,  13,  XVIII, 
5  fin.;  Lys.  XIII,  12,  XXX,  10;  Lys.  XV,  8,  XVI,  13. 

Lysias'  second  speech  against  Theomnestus  is  merely  an  epitome 
of  the  first  speech. ^^^  Harpocration  refers  to  the  Speech 
against  Theomnestus  six  times,  but  never  to  a  second  speech,  or 
to  the  first  as  the  first.  It  probably  was,  as  Jebb  says,  made  by  some 
grammarian  later  than  Harpocration's  time.  The  second  speech 
preserves  for  the  most  part  the  words  of  the  first :  ^^^  compare 
first  speech  1-5,  and  second  speech  1-2;  6-20,  and  3-6;  21-29,  ^"^ 
7-10;   30-32,   and   11-12. 

Isocrates  boasts  that  he  never  appropriated  the  material  of 
others ;  ^^^  according  to  his  own  story,  he  is  the  one  who  is  the 

»"Cf.  Long.(?)  de  Sublim.  13,  3-4. 

'"*!,  115. 

'"Att.  Bereds.  P  115.  Aristotle  (Soph.  Elench.  c.  34)  says  ready 
made  speeches  were  given  by  the  teachers  of  rhetoric  to  their  pupils  to  be 
memorized.     This  prooemium  may  have  been  part  of  one  of  those. 

'""Jebb,  I,  292. 

'"^Cf.  Herrmann,  c. :  Zur  Echtheitsfrage  von  Lysias  X  Rede  (Hannover, 
1878)   p.  17. 

"^U,  41;  V,  94;  X,  13;  XHI,  12. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I43 

object  of  quotation,  imitation,  and  plagiarism,^^®  because  he  has 
surpassed  his  rivals.^^^  Repetition  in  his  own  works  ^-^  he  justifies 
on  the  ground  that  since  others  adopt  his  arguments,  he  would  be 
a  fool  if  he  were  the  only  one  who  did  not  make  use  of  what  he 
had  said  before.^^-  Nevertheless  there  were  not  wanting  critics 
who  say  that  he  borrowed  from  others,  and  it  is  on  his  pet  Pane- 
gyricus  that  the  bulk  of  the  censure  falls.  The  Pseudo- Plutarch  ^^^ 
speaks  of  it  as  an  oration  "which  he  is  said  to  have  borrowed  out 
of  Gorgias  the  Leontine  and  Lysias".  According  to  Photius  ^^* 
the  Panegyriciis  owed  much  to  the  funeral  oration  of  Archinus, 
the  friend  of  Thrasybulus  whom  Plato  praises.^^^  According  to 
Philostratus,  Isocrates'  speech  is  an  adaptation  of  that  of  Gorgias 
on  the  same  theme. ^-^  Theon  believes  that  the  oration  is  borrowed 
fi-om  Lysias'  Epitaphius  and  Olympiacus.^^'^ 

There  is  a  close  resemblance  between  the  Epitaphius  current 
under  Lysias'  name  and  the  Panegyriciis  of  Isocrates.  If  we  be- 
lieve the  Epitaphius  a  genuine  speech  of  Lysias,  the  explanation  of 
the  resemblance  must  be  that  Isocrates  borrowed  from  Lysias,  or 
that  both  were  indebted  to  Gorgias.  Those  who  doubt  its  authenti- 
city ^-^  must  regard  the  Epitaphius  as  the  work  of  a  later  rhetori- 

^"•IV,  4;  V,  11;  84;  94;  XII,  I  ff.;  8;  16.  Cf.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  VI, 
263S,  who  mentions  a  book  de  scriptorum  furtis,  and  gives  examples. 

Mirabeau  used  to  take  whole  passages  of  other  peoples  speeches.  The 
Viscount  de  Cormenin  calls  him  the  "sublime  plagiarist".  On  Mirabeau's 
methods  and  style  see  Cormenin's  essay  on  Mirabeau  in  his  Orators  of 
France  (Livre  des  Orateurs)  American  edition  of  1854  to  which  is  prefixed 
J.  T.  Headley's  essay  on  the  Oratory  of  the  French  Revolution.  Cf.  also 
Mathews,  p.  195. 

^°XV,  61. 

«="  Such  as  the  quotations  in  XV,  from  III,  VIII,  IV,  II,  XIII. 

""V,  93-95. 

'-'  Ps.-Plut.  837F. 

"^Cod.  CCXL. 

^Menex.  403  A. 

^^  Vit.  Soph.  I,  17,  4;  the  Latin  version  calls  the  speech  "consarcinata." 

'"'Theon.  Progym.,  Rhet.  Gr.  II,  63,  30,  Sp. ;  I,  155,  Walz. 

'"^  Among  whom  is  Dobree,  who  says  in  his  Adversaria  "Illic  (in  the 
Panegyricus)  summum  oratorem  videas,  hie  (in  the  Epitaphius)  nugacem 
compilatorem". 

On  the  resemblance  between  the  two  speeches  see  Wolff,  E. :  Quae 
ratio  intercedat  inter  Lysiae  epitaphium  et  Isocratis  Panegyricum,  Berol, 
1896. 


144  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

cian  who  followed  Isocrates.  Compare  Lys.  (?)  II,  2,  Isocr.  IV, 
t86;  II,  9,  IV,  72;  II,  12,  IV,  53;  II,  15,  IV,  24;  II,  29,  IV,  88- 
89;  II,  31,  IV,  100;  II,  33,  IV,  96;  II,  37,  and  IV,  96;  II,  38, 
IV,  97;  II,  42,  IV,  98;  II,  44,  IV,  93;  II,  55,  IV,  106;  II, 
59,  IV,  115.  Also  compare  Lys.  XII,  98,  Isocr.  XIV,  48;  XIV, 
30,  XVI,  10;  XIV,  31,  XVI,  11;  XIV,  32,  XVI,  12;  XIV,  37, 
XVI,    11;   XVIII,   3,   XVI,   21;   XVIII,   4,   XVI,   5;   XVIII,   4, 

XVI,  46. 

Isaeus,  being  strictly  a  writer  of  court-speeches,  would  have 
little  need  of  the  sort  of  passages  usually  copied  by  orators.  The 
curious  expression  in  Oration  V,  10,  2-3 :  ouSe  y-aia  to  eXa^taTOV 
ixepo?  TYjq  ot/.ei6TY)TO?  may  have  been  copied  from  Lysias,  XII, 
20.  The  imitation  seems  the  more  probable  since  we  find  a  pass- 
age of  Lysias  (XXI,  19)  quoted  by  Stobaeus  ^^^  under  the  name 
of  Isaeus.^^^ 

Lycurgus,  Adv.  Leocr.  70,  is  clearly  an  imitation  of  Isocrates, 
IV,  72, 

Demosthenes'  imitation  of  Isaeus  is  perfectly  clear.  Still,  the 
way  in  which  Demosthenes  uses  his  borrowed  material,  shows  him 
to  be  no  slavish  imitator,  but  a  capable  orator.  This  will  be 
shown  by  an  examination  of  the  following  parallel  passages :  De- 
mosthenes XXX,  37,  incorporates  with  slight  changes  Isaeus,  XIII, 
12,  I.  Porphyry,  ap.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  X,  3,  p.  466,  notes  the 
similarity  of  these  two  passages,   with  which  compare  Isocrates, 

XVII,  54.  Demosthenes  XXXVII,  3,  copies  Isaeus,  VIII,  4.  De- 
mosthenes XXVII,  2,  3,  adopts  Isaeus  VIII,  5,  i,  and  as  Blass 
(IP  558,  n.  6)  points  out,  Demosthenes'  amplifications  produce 
a  better  rounded  and  more  artistic  period,  but  detract  from  the 
effectiveness  of  the  appeal.  Compare  also  Demosthenes,  XXVII, 
3,  and  Isaeus,  VIII,  4;  XXVII,  7,  and  VIII,  28;  XXVII,  47,  and 
VIII,  20. 

Demosthenes  XXX,  3,  copies  Isaeus,  VIII,  5,  2-3.  Demos- 
thenes XXX,  38,  imitates  Isaeus  VIII,  13,  i.    Demosthenes  XXVII, 

"^Flor.  V,  54. 

^"Fr.  131,  Sauppe.  Many  repetitions  may  be  found  in  Isaeus'  own 
speeches:  compare  I,  41-43  with  IV,  12-18;  I,  44-47,  with  IV,  23;  II,  46,  6, 
with  VII,  30;  III,  35-39,  with  III,  28;  cf.  also  III,  45,  49,  51;  VIII,  28,  i, 
with  fr.  30,  Sauppe.  The  substance  of  this  is  a  commonplace,  but  as  Diony- 
sius,  de  Isaeo,  c.  12,  observes,  characteristic  of  Isaeus. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I45 

47  ff.  imitates  Isaeus,  VIII,  28,   5    (compare  Dem.   XXIX,   55). 
Demosthenes  XXVIII,  23,  copies  Isaeus  VIII,  45,  4. 

Theon  ^^^  charges  Demosthenes  with  borrowing,  in  his  speech 
against  Midias,  from  speeches  by  Lysias,  Lycurgus,  and  Isaeus 
in  like  cases  of  outrage,  and  also  with  very  often  repeating  him- 
self. The  first  charge  may  be  true;  the  second  certainly  is.  A 
few  examples  follow:  III,  35,  24  repeats  XIII,  174,  26  (on  Or. 
XIII,  see  F.  A.  Wolf,  Prolegomena  ad  Leptineam,  p.  74)  ;  compare 
III,  35,  25-26  and  XIII,  174,  28-30,  also  XXIII,  17;  XIII,  174, 
26,  and  XV,  201,  35;  XIII,  172,  22-173,  24,  and  XXIII,  686, 
198;  XXI,  547,  and  XXI,  574,  also  XXV,  776,  22;  XXII,  595, 
7,  and  XXIII,  653;  XXII,  607,  47,  and  XXIV,  750-752;  XXII, 
607,  48,  and  XXIV,  750,  160;  XXII,  613,  65,  and  XXIV,  753; 
XXII,  615,  69-74,  and  XXIV,  753,  176-182;  XXII,  616,  74  and 
XXIV,  756,  182-187;  XXII,  617,  76,  and  XX,  459;  XXVII,  827, 
44-45,  and  XXIX,  857,  44-46;  XXVII,  830,  55-57,  and  XXIX, 
858,  47-49;  XXXVII,  983,  58  to  end  and  XXXVIII,  990,  21- 
'j'j  332 

The  Fourth  Philippic  and  the  oration  On  the  Letter  are  usually 
considered  spurious  and  therefore  need  not  be  discussed.  The 
former  ^^^  is  composed  largely  of  passages  drawn  from  the  Cher- 
sonese oration,  and  the  latter  of  parts  of  the  Second  Olynthiac .^^^ 

vEschines,  in  his  speech  Oyi  the  Embassy  (II,  172-176)  repeats 

'''Rhet.  Gr.  II,  63-64  Sp. 

®^^0n  repetition  in  Demosthenes  see  Gresdorfius,  C.  G. :  Synopsis  repe- 
titorum  Demosthenis  locoriim  (Altenburg,  1833-34),  who,  however,  under 
repetitions  includes  ''commonplaces"  as  well.  Westermann,  de  Litibus  etc., 
p.  143  ff.,  distinguishes  between  the  two.  It  may  be  that  Demosthenes  him- 
self contemplated  the  possibility  of  repetition :  XXIV,  159. 

*^0n  the  spuriousness  of  the  Fourth  Philippic  see  Dindorf,  Annot.  I, 
202:  Becker,  A.  G. :  Dem.  als  Staatsm.  u.  Red.  I,  293-302;  Westermann,  de 
Litibus,  etc.,  147  ff. ;  Boeckh.  Staatshaush.  d.  Ath.  I,  195;  235;  466;  Rue- 
digerus,  de  canone  Philip  pic  arum,  18  ff.  Brougham  (Vol.  IV,  388  ff.)  has  a 
long  and  detailed  examination  of  the  Fourth  Philippic,  the  authenticity  of 
which  he  does  not  doubt;  cf.  also  Croiset,  IV,  580.  The  speech  may  be 
either  a  cento,  or,  as  Blass  thinks,  an  incomplete  sketch  prepared  by  way 
of  exercise  by  the  orator  himself,  which  was  afterwards  found  among  his 
papers  and  published.  Another  possibility  is  that  the  passages  were  put 
together  by  some  pupil  (Mahaffy,  II,  321). 

^  Cf.  Westermann,  de  Litibus,  p.  165. 


146  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

with  some  omissions  and  changes  a  passage  from  Andocides'  On 
the  Peace  with  the  Lacedaemonians  (III,  3-9).^^^ 

In  Dinarchus  are  to  be  found  imitations  of  Demosthenes  and 
^schines:  compare  Dinarchus  I,  24  and  ^schines  III,  133; 
Dinarchus  I,  yy,  and  ^schines  III,  131,  and  157  (possibly)  ;  Din- 
archus, I,  96,  and  Demosthenes  XVIII,  311;  XIX,  282.  Compare 
Dinarchus  I,  15  and  24,  with  Dinarchus,  III,  18. 

Dinarchus  also  borrowed  from  Isaeus.  Blass  ^^^  thinks  that  he 
copied  the  opening  of  Isaeus'  Eighth  Oration  in  his  speech  Against 
Ameinocrates.^^'^ 

A  fragment  from  an  oration  of  Stratocles,  praised  by  Photius,^^® 
is  repeated  almost  word  for  word  by  Dinarchus. ^^^  The  presence 
of  such  passages  in  so  many  speeches  is  good  evidence  of  the 
careful  preparation  of  their  authors.  Indeed,  such  a  practice 
would  hardly  be  possible  except  on  the  theory  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  speeches  were  written  and  memorized. 

Outside  of  the  great  orators,  we  have  little  evidence  of  the 
practice  of  speech-makers  among  the  Greeks.  We  are  told  that 
when  Lysander  planned  to  abolish  the  exclusive  right  to  the  throne 
of  Sparta  possessed  by  the  families  descended  from  Eurypon  and 
Agis,  he  endeavored  "to  win  over  his  countrymen  to  his  views 
by  his  own  powers  of  persuasion,  and  with  that  object,  studied 
an  oration  written  for  him  by  Kleon  of  Halicarnassus".^*^  After 
Lysander's  death  the  speech  was  found  among  his  papers,  and  when 
Agesilaus  was  eager  to  publish  it,  and  thus  prove  the  baseness  of 

""^sch.  III,  6,  is  repeated  from  I,  4.  This  is,  however,  a  mere  com- 
monplace, for  which,  in  the  earlier  passage  ^schines  disclaims  originality; 
cf.  Isocr.  XII,  132;  Plato,  Rep.  338D;  Lycurg.  Adv.  Leocr.  3;  Arist.  Pol. 
IV,  2,  and  elsewhere. 

Critics  have  found  likenesses  between  ^schines  and  Demosthenes. 
These  may  be  accidental,  due  to  treatment  of  the  same  commonplaces :  ^sch. 
I,  2,  Dem.  XXI,  7;  ^sch.  I,  5,  Dem.  XX,  78;  ^sch.  I,  129,  Dem.  XIX,  243; 
^sch.  II,  14,  Dem.  LVII,  9;  ^sch.  II,  158,  Dem.  XVIII,  200. 

«»« Blass,  II,  558,  n.  5. 

'^Cf.  Dion.  Hal.  de  Din.  c.  12,  p.  315,  15  (U.  and  R.). 

"^Bihlioth.  p.  447  Bk. 

'^I,  24.  Diodorus,  XIII,  p.  585  suspects  either  that  Dinarchus  took 
the  passage  from  Stratocles,  or  that  the  oration  said  to  be  Dinarchus'  work 
really  belongs  to  Stratocles ;  the  latter  is  hardly  possible. 

'*°  Plut.  Lys.  c.  25. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I47 

Lysander,  Lakratides,  chief  of  the  ephors,  advised  him  to  bury 
"so  clever  and  insidious  a  composition"  with  Lysander.^*^ 

In  contrast  to  Lysander,  who  was  obliged  to  learn  a  speech 
written  for  him  by  another,  may  be  mentioned  the  orator  Callis- 
thenes,  who,  being  asked  on  one  occasion  by  Alexander  to  make  an 
extemporary  speech  in  praise  of  the  Macedonians,  succeeded  so 
well  that  all  commended  him  except  Alexander,  who  gave  the  praise 
to  the  good  subject  on  which  the  orator  spoke.  Callisthenes, 
then  being  commanded  to  make  a  speech  dealing  with  the  faults 
of  the  Macedonians,  succeeded  so  well  that  he  was  hateful  to  them 
ever  afterwards.^*- 

Phocion,  whom  Demosthenes  called  the  ''pruning  knife"  of 
his  orations, ^*^  clearly  prepared  and  memorized  his  speeches ;  at  least 
we  are  told  that  once  when  he  was  asked  by  his  friends  why  he 
was  buried  in  thought,  replied  that  he  was  considering  whether  he 
could  shorten  the  speech  he  was  going  to  recite  to  the  Athenians.^** 

Among  the  Roman  orators  we  hear  of  many  who  prepared  their 
orations  and  of  a  few  whose  speeches  were  extemporary.  For 
our  knowledge  of  many  of  these  we  are  dependent  on  the  mere 
notices  found  in  the  treatises  of  Cicero  and  Quintilian. 

Among  the  Greeks,  eloquence  was  an  end  in  itself.  Among  the 
Romans  it  took  from  the  beginning  a  practical  direction.'*^     As 

**^Plut.  Lys.  c.  30;  also  see  Plut.  Ages.  c.  20;  Nepos,  Lys.  Ill;  Diodor. 
XIV,  13. 

^  Plut.  Alex.  c.  53.  Plut.  Ant.  c.  80,  mentions  Philostratus  as  very  skill- 
ful as  an  extemporary  speaker :   olvtiq  eIjt81v  fxev  e|  EmSQopifig 

Ixavcaraxog. 

®"Plut.  Dem.  c.  10;  Phoc.  c.  5;  Pol.  Praec.  803  E;  Stobaeus,  Z7,  P-  221. 
For  the  saying:  jxEYiaxog  \ikv  'qtitcoq  Aiifxoa^EVTig,  SwaTcoxaxog  Se  eIjieiv 
$coxicov,  cf.  Plut.  Dem.  850D;  Phoc.  753F;  Pol.  Praec.  803E. 

***  Plut.  Phoc.  c,  5 :  axEn;xo[Aai,  ei  xi  Suva^ai  xou  Xoyou  dq)EX,Eiv,  ov  \iilX(A 
Xeyeiv  (recite)  Jtgog  'A'^vaiovg.  The  speech  reported  by  Plutarch  in  c.  17, 
is  probably  not  authentic.  What  purports  to  be  the  same  speech  is  given  at 
greater  length  by  Diodorus  XVII,  15. 

«*'Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  13,  55;  cf.  Sallust,  Cat.  8. 

Wilkins  (Introd.  to  Cicero's  de  Oratore,  p.  49)  says:  "Such  instruction 
as  was  given  a  young  Roman  was  entirely  practical.  At  an  early  age  he 
was  taken  by  his  father  to  the  law-courts,  to  the  popular  assemblies,  and  at 
one  time  at  least,  to  the  Senate  (Aul.  Cell.  I,  23)',  that  he  might  become 
familiar  with  the  turmoil  of  business  and  the  routine  of  legal  proceedings, 


148  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

early  as  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  Appius  Claudius  delivered 
his  famous  speech  against  the  peace  with  Pyrrhus,  a  speech  after- 
wards published,^*^  since  it  was  extant  in  Cicero's  time.^*^  Accord- 
ing to  Cicero,  however,  the  first  writer  worthy  of  attention  is  Cato 


and  listen  to  the  acknowledged  masters  of  oratory".  Cf.  Tacitus,  Dial.  c. 
36,  13 :  eloquentiam  tamen  illud  forum  magis  exercebat ;  compare  c.  38,  3. 

Tacitus  states  this  at  great  length  in  Dial.  c.  34.  As  a  result  of  this 
practical  training,  the  Roman  orators  began  their  career  in  early  youth. 
Africanus  Minor  says  (Polyb.  32,  9)  at  the  age  of  eighteen.  Pliny  (Ep. 
V,  8,  8)  says :  undevicisimo  aetatis  anno  dicere  in  foro  coepi  (compare  Ovid, 
Trist.  IV,  ID,  15).  Quintilian  (XII,  6,  i)  would  set  no  particular  year,  but 
let  that  depend  on  the  student's  capacity. 

It  was  very  common  for  an  orator  to  commence  his  career  by  prosecu- 
tions (Quint.  XII,  6,  I,  who  gives  a  list  of  orators;  Polyb.  32,  15  fin.;  Cic. 
de  Off.  II,  49;  Suet.  Jul.  4;  Val.  Max.  V,  4,  4;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  34;  Apul.  ApoL 
66),  or  by  a  speech  in  praise  of  a  deceased  relative.  Augustus  Caesar  is 
said  to  have  done  so  at  the  age  of  twelve  (Suet.  Aug.  c.  8;  compare  Tib. 
6;  Quint.  XII,  6,  i).  On  these  youthful  laudationes  see  Hiibner,  E., 
Hermes,  I,  441. 

The  custom  of  delivering  funeral  orations  among  the  Romans  was 
ancient,  even  older  than  the  Greek  custom;  (Plut.  Poplic.  c.  9;  Polyb.  VI, 
53;  Cic.  de  Or.  II,  44  ff. ;  de  Leg.  II,  62;  Brutus,  XV,  61;  Livy,  II,  47,  11'; 
Quint.  Ill,  7,  2;  XI,  3,  153;  Aul.  Cell.  XIII,  20,  17;  Capitol.  Ant.  4>hil.  7,  11). 
They  were  also  published  at  a  comparatively  early  time :  Pliny,  A'^.  H.  VII, 
139 ;  Plut.  Fab.  i ;  Livy,  XXVII,  27,  and  elsewhere.  Compare  Livy,  VIII, 
40;  IV,  16.  For  the  history  of  the  custom  see  Vollmer:  Laudationum 
Funebrium,  Romanorum  Historia  et  Reliquiarum,  Editio,  Jahrb.  f.  class. 
Phil.  XVIII,  445;  XIX,  319;  Buresch,  C. ;  Consolationum  a  Graecis  Roman- 
isque  Scriptarum  Historia  Critica,  Leipziger  Studien,  IX  (1887),  1-164. 

^  Publication  of  speeches  was  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception  among 
the  Romans.  Any  few  chapters  of  Cicero's  Brutus  gives  a  very  great  number 
of  orators,  many  of  little  fame,  whose  speeches  were  extant  in  Cicero's  time ; 
for  example,  Brut.  XIX,  77;  XX,  79',  80;  XXI,  81;  XXIII,  90; 
XXV,  94;  95;  96;  XXVI,  102;  XXVII,  103;  106;  XXVIII,  108; 
XXIX,  112;  XXX,  113;  114;  117;  XXXII,  122;  127;  129;  131;  132;  163  and 
elsewhere.  Many  others  may  be  found  in  the  pages  of  Quintilian;  I,  i,  6;  II, 
I,  58;  X,  I,  120  and  elsewhere. 

"'Cic.  Brut.  XIV,  55;  XVI,  61;  Cat.  Mai.  c.  6,  16;  Senec.  Ep.  114,  13; 
Tac.  Dial.  c.  18,  18;  Quint.  II,  16,  7;  Pompon,  dig.  i,  2,  2,  36.  This  was  the 
first  prose  work  written  down  and  published  among  the  Romans:  cf.  Isidor. 
Orig.  I,  37,  2:  primus  apud  Graecos  Pherecydes  Syrius  soluta  oratione 
scripsit,  apud  Romanos  Appius  Caecus  adversus  Pyrrhum  solutam  orationem 
primus  exercuit 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I49 

the  Elder, ^^^  whose  speeches  were  almost  as  numerous  as  those  of 
Lysias  the  Athenian.^*®  "He  was  the  first  Roman  who  wrote 
down  and  published  his  speeches  on  a  large  scale  and  among  his 
published  speeches  were  some  which  were  never  actually  de- 
livered".^^"  Nepos  inaccurately  says  that  Cato  composed  speeches 
in  his  youth,^^^  for  his  account  is  at  variance  with  all  we  know  of 
the  practice  of  the  "Roman  Demosthenes.^^^  According  to  Plutarch 
he  practiced  his  eloquence  through  all  the  neighborhood  and  the 
little  villages,  considering  it  an  absolute  necessity  for  one  who  lookfed 
forward  to  something  above  a  humble  and  inactive  life.^^^  In 
the  art  of  speech-making  he  had  recourse  to  the  masters  of  rhetoric 

*"0n  Cato  the  Elder  see  Schober,  E. :  de  Catone  Cens.  Oratore,  Neisse, 
1825. 

^'Brut.  XVI,  63;  67;  XVII,  69;  Orat.  XLV,  152. 

"^Teuffel,  Hist.  Rom.  Lit.  sec.  119  (Warr). 

*^^Cat.  c.  3;  a  more  accurate  account  appears  in  Cicero,  Cat.  Mai.  38. 

'"  Plut.  Cat.  c.  4. 

"^'Plut.  Cat.  c.  I.  So  Emerson  says  that  the  way  to  become  an  orator  is 
to  stump  New  England  several  times.  In  his  Journal  (1850)  he  classes 
Demosthenes  as  one  of  the  four  good  stump-orators  since  history  began. 

Emerson  himself,  however,  would  never  trust  to  extemporary  speech, 
but  always  read  his  speeches.  Lowell,  in  Emerson  the  Lecturer  (Vol.  i, 
359,  Riverside  ed.)  says :  '*I  have  heard  some  great  speakers  and  some  ac- 
complished orators,  but  never  any  that  so  moved  and  persuaded  me  as  he 
(Emerson)',  There  is  a  kind  of  undertow  in  that  rich  baritone  of  his  that 
sweeps  our  minds  from  their  foothold  into  deeper  waters  with  a  drift  that 
we  cannot  and  would  not  resist.  And  how  artfully  (for  Emerson  is  a  long 
studied  artist  in  these  things)  does  the  deliberate  utterance  that  seems  wait- 
ing for  the  fit  word,  appear  to  admit  us  partners  in  the  labor  of  thought,  and 
make  us  feel  as  if  the  glance  of  humor  were  a  sudden  suggestion,  as  if  the 
perfect  phrase  lying  written  there  on  the  desk  were  as  unexpected  to  him  as 
to  us !  In  that  closely-filed  speech  of  his,  at  the  Burns  centenary  dinner, 
every  word  seemed  to  have  just  dropped  to  him  from  the  clouds.  He 
looked  far  away  over  the  heads  of  his  hearers,  with  a  vague  kind  of  ex- 
pectation, as  into  some  private  heaven  of  invention,  and  the  winged  period 
came  at  last,  obedient  to  his  spell.  'My  dainty  Ariel !'  he  seemed  murmuring 
to  himself  as  he  cast  down  his  eyes  as  if  in  deprecation  of  the  frenzy  of 
approval  and  caught  another  sentence  from  the  Sibylline  leaves  that  lay 
before  him,  ambushed  behind  a  dish  of  fruit,  and  seen  only  by  the  nearest 
neighbors." 


150  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

and  exercised  himself  in  the  manner  they  directed.^^*  There  seems 
to  be  no  evidence  that  he  ever  spoke  extempore.^^^ 

Although  there  are  many  who  are  named  as  orators  among 
the  contemporaries  of  Cato,  there  is  little  information  as  to  their 
practice.  Of  one  of  these,  Quintus  Fabius  Maximus,  we  hear  that 
he  wrote  and  delivered  the  funeral  oration  of  his  daughter.^^^ 

In  the  following  century  we  find  three  orators  of  particular  note, 
the  Younger  Scipio,  Laelius  and  Servius  Sulpicius  Galba.  The 
latter  was  deemed  the  greatest  orator  of  his  timCj  yet  to  Cicero 
time  has  so  destroyed  the  beauties  of  his  eloquence  that  his  speeches 
have  more  the  air  of  antiquity  than  those  even  of  Cato.^®^  Of  the 
practice  of  Scipio  and  Laelius  we  know  little,  but  there  is  left  a 
fair  description  of  that  of  Galba.  On  one  occasion,  after  Laelius 
had  failed  to  win  a  case,  Galba  undertook  it,  and  as  he  had  only  the 
the  next  day  in  which  to  prepare  himself,  he  spent  the  whole  of  it 
in  considering  and  digesting  his  cause.  Until  the  moment  when 
word  was  brought  him  that  the  consuls  were  going  to  take  their 
seats,  he  remained  shut  up  in  his  study  to  which  he  admitted  no  one, 
busily  dictating  to  his  scribes.  Rutilius,  who  is  relating  the  anecdote, 
says  that  the  scribes  who  attended  Galba  appeared  very  much  fa- 
tigued, and  argues  from  this  circumstance  that  Galba  must  have  been 
as  energetic  and  vigorous  in  the  composition  of  his  speeches  as  he 
was  in  their  delivery.^^^ 

The  reason  why  no  trace  of  the  merit  of  Galba  is  to  be  found 
in  his  written  orations  is  thus  given  by  Cicero  :^^^  **The  reasons  why 

»"Cic.  Brut.  XXXI,  119. 

""  His  habit  of  inserting  his  speeches  in  his  book  on  Antiquities  would 
make  such  a  practice  unlikely.  Cf.  Cicero,  Brut.  XXIII,  89;  de  Or.  I,  53, 
227;  II,  56,  227;  Aul.  Cell.  VI,  3,  7;  XIII,  25,  15;  compare  Brut.  XX,  80. 

*"Cic.  Cat.  Mai.  XII,  39;  Plut.  Fab.  i,  and  25. 

'^'Brut.  XXI,  82-83.  On  Scipio  see  Cic.  de  Amicit.  96;  Brut.  XXI,  82; 
LXXIV,  258;  pro  Mur.  58;  de  Inv.  I,  S',  de  Or.  I,  50,  215;  de  Off.  I,  116; 
Fronto,  34,  Nab. 

"^Cic.  Brut.  XXII,  87;  This  description,  especially  the  dictation  to  the 
scribes,  would  imply  verbal  premeditation.  The  orator  no  doubt  took  the 
finished  manuscript  with  him.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  scribes  took 
down  the  speech  in  short-hand.  Quintilian  (X,  3,  19-23)'  does  not  approve  of 
dictation. 

"^'Brut.  XXIII-XXIV.  Cf.  Pascal  (Pensees  VII,  6,  ed.  Havet)  :  "II  y  en 
a  qui  parlent  bien  et  qui  n'ecrivent  pas  bien;  c'est  que  le  lieu,  I'assistance  les 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I5I 

some  orators  have  not  written  anything,  and  others  not  so  much  as 
they  spoke  are  very  different.  Some  of  our  orators,  being  indolent 
and  unwilHng  to  add  the  labor  of  private  to  that  of  public  business, 
do  not  practice  composition ;  for  most  of  the  orations  we  now  possess 
were  written  not  before  they  were  delivered,  but  some  time  after- 
ward. Others  did  not  choose  to  take  the  trouble  of  improving  them- 
selves, to  which  nothing  contributes  in  a  greater  degree  than  frequent 
writing,  and  to  perpetuate  their  eloquence  they  thought  unnecessary, 
believing  their  renown  in  that  respect  already  sufficiently  estab- 
lished, and  that  it  would  rather  be  diminished  than  increased  if  they 
submitted  any  written  orations  to  the  arbitrary  test  of  criticism.^^^ 
Some  also  were  sensible  that  they  spoke  much  better  than  they  were 
able  to  write,  which  is  generally  the  case  with  those  who  have  great 
genius  but  little  learning,  like  Galba.  When  he  spoke  he  was  per- 
haps so  much  animated  by  the  force  of  his  abilities  and  the  natural 
warmth  and  impetuosity  of  his  temper  that  his  language  was  rapid, 
bold  and  striking ;  but  when  he  took  up  the  pen  in  his  leisure  hours, 
and  his  passion  had  sunk  into  a  calm,  his  style  ^^^  became  dull 
and  languid.  This  misfortune,  indeed,  can  never  happen  to  those 
whose  only  aim  is  to  be  neat  and  polished,  because  an  orator  may 
always  be  master  of  that  discretion  which  will  enable  him  to  speak 
and  write  in  the  same  agreeable  manner,  but  no  man  can  revive  at 
pleasure  the  warmth  of  his  passion,  and  when  that  has  once  sunk, 
the  fire  and  pathos  of  his  language  will  be  extinguished.  This  is 
why  the  calm  and  easy  spirit  of  Laelius  ^^^  seems  still  to  breathe 

echauffent,  et  tirent  de  leur  esprit  plus  qu'ils  n'y  trouvent  sans  cette  chaleur." 
(Quoted  by  Croiset,  IV,  13). 

^°  The  orations  which  came  down  to  Cicero  were  those  of  men  who  wrote 
them,  and  therefore  presumably  either  committed  them  to  memory  or  read 
them.  Cicero  implies  that  the  sole  reason  for  non-publication  was  not  writ- 
ing the  oration,  and  therefore  those  which  were  published  were  written. 
This  would  not  make  revision  after  delivery  and  before  publication  impos- 
sible. 

^^  oratio  :  this  word  is  clearly  used  in  the  sense  of  style,  because  Cicero 
is  speaking  of  writing  up  a  speech  after  it  has  been  given,  that  is,  putting  it 
in  final  finished  form  for  publication.  Cf.  Terence,  Heaut.  46:  pura  oratio, 
"purity  of  style."  Galba  may  have  polished  his  speech  so  much  before  he 
published  it  that  he  took  all  the  fire  out  of  it. 

^"^  Political  speeches,  defenses,  and  panegyrics  by  Laelius  are  mentioned : 
Cicero,  Brut.  c.  XXI,  82;  83;  c  LXXXVI,  296;  de  Rep.  VI,  2;  de  Nat.  Deor. 
Ill,  43;  cf.  H.  Meyer,  Orat.  fr.  I,  96. 


152  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

in  his  writings,  whereas  the  vigor  of  Galba  is  entirely  withered 
away".^^^ 

Caius  Gracchus,  whose  eloquence  is  much  praised  by  the  an- 
cients,^^*  was  charged  by  an  opponent  with  employing  Menelaus 
of  Marathus  to  compose  his  speeches.^^^ 

The  Younger  Cato  was  evidently  an  able  orator.^^®  He  was 
requested  by  Lucius  Caesar  to  help  him  prepare  a  speech,^®^  and 
on  one  occasion,  at  least,  was  fully  capable  of  delivering  an  ex- 
temporary defense  against  an  attack  by  Caesar.^^® 

The  principal  orators  of  the  age  before  Cicero  were  M.  Antonius 
and  L.  Licinius  Crassus.  The  first  of  these  was  a  self-taught 
orator  who  owed  his  eminence  to  his  excellent  memory,  his  natural 
vivacity,  and  quickness  in  argument,  and  whose  chief  merit  lay  in 
his  brilliant  delivery."^^  Cicero  says  of  him:  ''He  had  a  quick 
and  retentive  memory,  and  a  frankness  of  manner  which  precluded 
any  suspicion  of  artifice.    All  his  speeches  were,  in  appearance,  the 

^  Cicero  is  probably  writing  loosely  and  has  mixed  up  style  and  delivery. 

*^Plut.  C.  Gracch.  c.  i ;  c.  3;  c.  4;  Cicero,  Brut.  XXXIII,  125-126;  pro 
Font.  39;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  26;  Fronto,  Ep.  p.  54;  144-145.  On  his  delivery  and  his 
care  in  the  modulation  of  his  voice,  see  Plut.  C.  Gracch.  c.  4  (compare  Cic. 
de  Or.  I,  34,  154);  Tib.  Gracch,  c.  2;  Cic.  de  Or.  Ill,  56,  214;  III,  60,  225; 
de  harusp.  resp.  19,  41;  Florus,  III,  15.  Cf.  also  Plut.  de  cohib.  ira  6;  Val. 
Max.  VIII,  10,  i;  Quint.  I,  10,  27;  Aul.  Cell.  I,  11,  10;  Amm.  Marcell.  XXX, 
4,  19;  De  Quincey,  X,  326.  Fragments  of  his  speeches  are  preserved  in 
Gellius:  XI,  3,  3-5;  XI,  10,  2-6,  13,  3;  XV,  12,  2-4.  The  model  of  both  the 
Gracchi  was  M.  Lepidus  Porcina,  mentioned  by  Cicero  as  not  only  an  ex- 
cellent speaker,  but  also  as  a  distinguished  writer  of  speeches  for  others: 
Brut.  XXV,  96. 

^  Cicero,  Brut.  XXVI,  100.  He  also  received  instructions  from  Diophanes 
of  Mytilene  (Brut.  XXVII,  104;  Plut.  Tib.  Gracch.  c.  8).  There  was  also  a 
discussion  in  Cicero's  time  as  to  whether  Gracchus'  opponent,  Fannius,  might 
have  been  indebted  to  others  for  his  speech.  Cicero  rejects  the  view  on  the 
ground  that  Gracchus  would  not  have  failed  to  mention  the  circumstance 
if  it  were  true. 

^'Aul.  Gell.  XIII,  20  (19),  10;  Fest.  154,  25;  Priscian,  GL.  I,  90. 

•«'  Plut.  Cat.  Min.  c.  66. 

**Plut.  Cat.  Min.  c.  51 :  dvaaxa^  exeivog wajteQ  ex  Xoyicm-ou 

xal  rcaQaaxevfjg  xa  \ikv  elg  eauxov  iyKXi\\iaxa  >.oi8oQiaig opioia 

aJteSei^ev. 

^*  In  Cicero's  de  Oratore  he  and  Crassus  are  the  principal  speakers.  Cf. 
de  Or.  II,  2,  8. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 53 

unpremeditated  effusions  of  an  honest  heart,^^°  and  yet  in  reality, 
they  were  preconstructed  (paratus)  with  so  much  skill  that  the 
judges  were  sometimes  not  so  well  prepared  as  they  should  have 
been,  to  withstand  the  force  of  them".^^^  He  never  published  his 
orations.^''^ 

Crassus,  in  contrast  to  Antonius,  was  the  man  of  training.  Ac- 
cording to  Plutarch,^'^  he  was  one  of  the  best  speakers  at  Rome, 
and  no  trial  was  so  mean  and  contemptible  that  he  came  to  it  un- 
prepared.^^*   This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  Crassus  followed 

^"The  highest  triumph  of  art  consists  in  concealing  the  means  which  it 
uses.  The  idea  passed  into  a  proverb :  artis  est  celare  artem.  Although  this 
exact  form  is  not  found  in  Cicero  or  Quintilian,  the  idea  is  often  present : 
Cicero,  Brut.  IX,  35;  XVI,  64;  Oral.  LXVII,  226;  de  Opt.  Gen.  Orat.  IV, 
10;  Quint.  I,  II,  3;  II,  5,  8;  III,  8,  50-51;  IV,  2,  59;  IX,  4,  17;  4,  144.  Other 
passages  containing  the  same  thought  are  Arist.  Rhet.  Ill,  2,  4-5;  7,  10;  Dion. 
Hal.  de  Lys.  8 ;  Vet.  Cens.  V ;  Ovid,  Met.  X,  252.  A  form  of  the  proverb  men- 
tioned   above    is    to    be    found    in    Erasmus,    Adagia    p.    234     {ed.    1656) 

^Brtit.  XXXVII,  139.  Cf.  also  Brut.  sees.  143,  186,  207,  215,  301,  304; 
Tusc.  V,  19,  55;  de  Or.  I,  172. 

'"^Cicero,  Orat.  XXXIX,  133.  Cicero,  pro  Cluent.  140  gives  a  reason: 
"M.  Antonium  aiunt  solitum  esse  dicere  idcirco  se  nullam  umquam  orationem 
scripsisse  ut,  si  quid  aliquando  non  opus  esset  ab  se  esse  dictum,  posse  negare 
dixisse."  Cf.  Orat.  XXXVIII,  132. 

Antonius  either  never  wrote  a  speech  at  all,  or,  what  is  very  much  more 
probable,  he  prepared  his  speeches  before  delivery  so  that  they  seemed  un- 
prepared, and  never  afterwards  published  them. 

Speeches  by  him  are  mentioned  in  Cic.  ad  Fam.  IX,  21,  3;  de  Or.  I,  39, 
178;  II,  25,  107;  28,  124;  39,  164;  40,  167;  47,  194;  197  ff. ;  de  Off.  II,  14,  50; 
III,  16,  67;  Tusc.  Disp.  II,, 24,  56;  Val.  Max.  Ill,  7,  9.  He  published  a  small 
work,  de  ratione  dicendi:  Cic.  Orat.  V,  18;  de  Or.  I,  sees.  94,  206,  208;  Brut. 
sec.  163;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  19;  VIII,  proem.  13;  XII,  i,  21;  Pliny,  Ep.  V,  20,  5. 

''^Plut.  Crass,  c.  3. 

''*  Cic.  Brut.  c.  XLIII,  158 : paratus  (cf.  also  Brut.  LXXVI, 

263,  of  another  orator)  igitur  veniebat  Crassus.  The  same  statement  is  made 
in  Plut.  Crass,  c.  3;  cf.  pro  Mur.  23,  48;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  37,  10;  also  Brut.  sees. 
I43-I45,  148,  158-165.  The  description  given  of  Crassus  in  the  de  Oratore  is 
probably  not  very  trustworthy.  It  is  Cicero's  evident  desire  to  identify  him- 
self with  Crassus,  and  so  he  attributes  to  him  {de  Or.  I,  34,  154-155)  those 
exercises  which  Quintilian  tells  us  (X,  5,  2)  that  Cicero  himself  went 
through.  The  rest  of  the  description  may  be  colored  in  like  manner.  Com- 
pare Brut.  LXXXIX  ff.  Cf.  Mathews,  p.  429  ff. 

Crassus,  although  equipped  with  all  the  learning  of  his  time,  affected  to 
think  little  of  it  {de  Or.  II,  i,  4)'.     So  Aper,  in  Tacitus'  Dialogus  (c.  i,  15; 


154  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

closely  a  written  speech.  Cicero  tells  of  two  occasions  on  which  he 
used  only  a  series  of  topics  or  heads.  On  the  occasion  of  the  speech 
made  by  Crassus  in  praise  of  Quintus  Caepio,  Cicero  says :  "Much 
more  was  said  than  was  committed  to  writing,  as  is  sufficiently  clear 
from  several  heads  of  the  oration  which  are  merely  proposed  with- 
out any  enlargement  or  explanation.  But  the  oration  in  his  censor- 
ship against  Cn.  Domitius,  his  colleague,  is  not  so  much  an  oration 
as  an  analysis  of  the  subject,  or  a  general  sketch  of  what  he  said, 
with  here  and  there  a  few  ornamental  touches  by  way  of  speci- 
men".^^5 

In  addition  to  these  orators,  there  may  be  mentioned  P.  Sul- 
picius  Rufus  and  C.  Aurelius  Cotta.  Although  both  were  speakers 
of  ability  ^^^  they  did  not  publish  their  speeches.^^^  Cicero  says 
of  them :  ^^^  "The  orations  now  extant  which  bear  the  name  of 
Sulpicius  are  supposed  to  have  been  written  after  his  death  by  my 
contemporary,   Publius   Cannutius  ^^^ But   we   have 


c.  6)  believed  that  his  orations  would  be  more  admired  if  they  did  not  sug- 
gest care.  Compare  Cicero,  Brut.  LXVII,  237,  where  natural  ability  and 
laborious  care  are  contrasted. 

'''"Brut.  XLIV,  164;  cf.  Orat  XXXIX,  132-133.  Speeches  by  Crassus  are 
mentioned  in  Cicero,  Brut.  XXXIV,  130;  XLIII,  160,  161;  XLIV,  162,  163, 
164;  LII,  195;  pro  Cluent.  51,  140;  de  Or.  I,  39,  178;  180;  52,  225;  57,  242; 
II,  6,  24;  Z2,  140;  55,  223  ff.;  59,  240;  66,  267;  70,  285;  III,  2,  6\  de  Off.  II, 
14,  50;  Top.  X,  44;  pro  Caec.  18,  53;  Val.  Max.  IX,  i,  4;  Pliny,  N.  H. 
XVII,  I. 

"'"Cic.  Brut.  LV,  203;  XLIX,  182;  LV,  202. 

^"^  Cic.  Orat.  XXXIX,  132-133. 

"""Brut.  LVI,  205.  Cf.  also  Brut.  LV,  203;  de  Or.  I,  53,  229;  II,  21,  88; 
HI,  36,  147. 

®'®  From  Cicero's  words :  "eas  post  mortem  eius  scripsisse  P.  Cannutius 
putatur,"  one  would  gather  that  the  speeches  were  forgeries.  There  is,  of 
course,  the  possibility  that  Cannutius  wrote  up  the  speeches  from  Sulpicius* 
own  notes,  but  of  this  the  Cicero  passage  gives  no  hint.  Cf.  Cic.  pro  Cluent. 
29,  50,  58,  7^,  74. 

A  modern  parallel  might  be  found  in  Dr.  Johnson's  writing  up  the 
speeches  delivered  in  the  English  parliament  "from  the  scanty  notes  furnished 
by  persons  employed  to  attend  in  both  houses  of  Parliament."  Boswell  con- 
tinues:  "Sometimes,  however,  as  he  himself  told  me,  he  had  nothmg  more 
communicated  to  him  but  the  names  of  the  several  speakers,  and  the  part 
which  they  had  taken  in  the  debate."  (Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  I,  68-69,  ed. 
Fitzgerald,  London,  1900). 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 55 

not  a  single  speech  of  Sulpicius  that  was  really  his  own ;  for  I  have 
often  heard  him  say  that  he  neither  had,  nor  ever  could  commit 
anything  of  the  kind  to  writing  ;^^°  and  as  to  Cotta's  speech  in 
defense  of  himself,  called  a  vindication  of  the  Varian  Law,  it 
was  composed  at  his  own  request  by  Lucius  ^lius".^®^ 

In  the  age  of  Cicero  himself,  mention  need  be  made  only  of  the 
principal  orator  of  the  aristocratic  party,  Q.  Hortensius  Hortalus, 
whose  chief  merit  seems  to  have  been  his  wonderful  memory.^®^ 


Spurious  speeches  existed  later  also.  In  the  post-Ciceronian  period, 
there  are  speeches  under  the  names  of  Catiline,  and  Marcus  Antonius  against 
Cicero;  these  may,  however,  have  been  genuine:  cf.  Asconius  Pedianus,  96 
Or. ;  Quint.  Ill,  7,  2 ;  IX,  3,  94.  Speeches  under  names  of  men  of  consular 
rank  were  circulated  against  Sejanus  (Tac.  Ann.  V,  4), 

^Compare  Cic.   Orat.  XXXIX,   133. 

°**^lius  composed  speeches  for  many  prominent  men.  Brut.  LVI,  206. 
Cf.  Suet,  de  Gr.  3;  Cic.  Brut.  LVI,  205-7;  XLVI,  169:  This  implies  that 
Cotta  memorized  or  read  the  speech  written  by  ^lius.  So  C.  Laelius  wrote 
speeches  for  Tubero  (Cic.  de  Or.  II,  84,  341),  and  Fabius  Maximus  (Cic. 
pro.  Mur.  75 ;  Schol.  Bob.  ad  Cic.  p.  Mil.  16,  p.  283  Or.)  ;  Plotius  Callus  for 
Sempronius  Atratinus  (Suet,  de  Gr.  2)';  Caesar  for  Metellus  (Suet,  Jul.  55)  ; 
Cicero  for  Cn.  Pompeius  and  T.  Ampius  (Quint.  Ill,  8,  50)  ;  cf.  also  Cicero, 
ad  Q.  Fr.  Ill,  8,  5;  ad  Att.  VII,  17;  Fronto  Ep.  p.  123. 

^*^  For  a  specimen  see  Sen.  Controv.  I,  Praef.  19. 

The  ancients  paid  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  the  cultivation  of  the 
memory.  Plutarch  (C.  Marius,  fin.)  calls  it  "that  safest  of  human  treasure 
chambers"  (cf.  also  Cic.  de  Or.  1,  5,  18;  I,  31,  142;  Part  Or.  VII,  26). 
Antonius  {de  Or.  II,  86,  350-360)  gives  an  outline  of  the  art  of  memory  (cf. 
also  Cic.  de  Inv.  I,  7;  Acad.  II,  22,  38,  p.  106  ed.  Reid;  IV,  i;  Arist.  Rhet. 
II,  8,  14;  Plut.  Dem.  846).  The  same  subject  is  elaborately  treated  by  the 
Auctor  ad  Herennium  I,  2,  2-3;  III,  16,  28-40  (on  this  treatise  see  Spengel, 
Rhein.  Mus.,  1861,  391-413)  and  later  by  Quintilian  (XI,  2)  who  rejects  the 
elaborate  system  of  "places,"  held  by  some  and  proposes  a  simpler  one.  Cf.  also 
Arist.  de  Mem.  et  Rem.  c.  1 ;  Martianus  Capella  V  (de  memoria)  ;  Plato, 
Theat.  191  C-E;  in  the  Philebus  Plato  compares  memory  to  a  book. 

Hippias  professed  an  art  of  memory  (Plato,  Hipp.  Min.  368  E;  Philostr. 
Vit.  Soph.  I,  II,  I ;  Mahly,  Rhein.  Mus.  XVI,  40  ff.)  as  did  Simonides  (Quint. 
XI,  2,  11;  Philostr.  Vit.  A  poll.  I,  14,  i)  and  Evenus  (Plato,  Phaedr.  267  A). 
Philostratus,  on  the  contrary,  denies  the  existence  of  an  art  of  memory; 
"memory  is  a  gift  of  nature  and  part  of  the  imperishable  soul"  (Vit.  Soph. 
I,  22,  3  ff.)  Quintilian  says:  "The  great  and  only  art  of  memory  is  exercise 
and  labor"  (XI,  2,  40).  Plutarch  devotes  one  section  of  his  treatise,  de  Educat. 
Puer.  (c.  13)  to  a  discussion  of  the  memory.  The  ability  to  use  the  memory 
was  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  use  of  drugs  and  Chaldean  arts  (Amm.  Mar- 


156  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

Cicero  says:  "He  had  such  an  excellent  memory  as  I  never  knew 
in  any  person,  so  that  what  he  had  composed  in  private,  he  was  able 
to  repeat,  without  his  written  copy,  sine  scrip  to, ^^^  in  the  very 
same  words  he  had  made  use  of  at  first.  He  employed  this  natural 
advantage  with  so  much  readiness,  that  he  not  only  recollected  what 
he  had  written  or  premeditated  himself,  but  remembered  every- 
thing that  had  been  said  by  his  opponents  without  the  help  of  a 
prompter.^^*  He  was  likewise  inflamed  with  such  a  passionate 
love  for  the  profession  that  I  never  saw  anyone  who  took  more 
pains  to  improve  himself ;  for  he  would  not  suffer  a  day  to  elapse 
without  either  speaking  in  the  forum  or  composing  something  at 
home,  and  very  often  he  did  both  in  the  same  day."  ^^^ 

Quintilian  ^^^  praises  him  for  his  exactness  in  division,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  Cicero  laughs  at  the  divisions  in  Horten- 
sius'  speeches  as  being  counted  on  his  fingers. ^^^  His  oratory  de- 
pended largely  for  its  effect  upon  his  graceful  delivery ,^®^  and  it 

cell.  XVI,  5,  7-8;  Philostr.  p.  523;  618;  Longinus  (Rhet.  Gr.  I,  314  ff.  Sp.)  ; 
Plato,  Phaedr.  274-S;  Caesar,  B.  G.  VI,  14;  PHny,  N.  H.  XXXI,  11,  XXV,  21. 

Wonderful  feats  of  memory  were  attributed  to  some  of  the  ancients. 
A  few  passages  dealing  with  such  achievements  follow:  Pliny,  A^.  H.  VII, 
24;  XXV,  2-3;  Val.  Max.  VIII,  7,  6;  Xen.  Cyroped.  Bk.  V;  Aul.  Cell.  XVII, 
c.  17;  Cicero,  de  Or.  II,  cc.  86-88;  Tusc.  Disp.  I,  c.  24;  Pliny,  Ep.  II,  3,  3; 
Seneca,  Controv.  I,  praef.;  Quint.  X,  6,  4;  XI,  2,  38;  Amm.  Marcell.  XVI,  5, 
7-8;  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  25,  22;  Eunapius,  p.  65,  75,  79;  Syn.  Dion.  11. 

On  the  subject  in  general  see  Morgenstern,  C. :  de  arte  veterum  mnem- 
onica;  Heriotes,  P.  N. :  'H  [xvrijxTi  ev  xfj  grixooixfi  xcov  dgxaicov.  1883. 

A  sufficiently  full  list  of  modern  treatments,  beginning  with  Roger 
Bacon's  Tractatus  de  Arte  Memorativa  (1274  ?)'  and  extending  through  the 
year  1888  may  be  found  in  Middleton-Fellows'  Memory  Systems  New  and 
Old,  N.  Y.  1888. 

^ Sine  scripto:  cf.  also  de  scripto  dicere,  to  speak  from  a  written  copy; 
Cicero,  Plamc,  30,  70;  Phil.  X,  2,  5;  Brut.  XII,  46;  ad  Att.  IV,  3,  3;  ad.  Fam. 
X,  13,  I ;  Pliny,  Ep.  VI,  6,  6.  For  scriptum  as  a  "speech"  see  Cicero,  ad 
Quint.  Fr.  Ill,  8,  5;  Tac.  Hist.  IV,  29.  Cf.  also  p.  76,  n.  31. 

'^  This  probably  does  not  refer  to  one  who  would  aid  him  from  a  written 
copy  of  his  speech,  but  merely  to  one  who  would  remind  him  of  the  points 
made  by  the  other  side.  Prompting  in  the  modern  sense,  however,  is  men- 
tioned by  Quintilian  (XI,  2,  45;  3,  132;  cf.  pp.  60-61. 

'''Brut.  LXXXVIII,  301-4. 

'"IV,  5,  24. 

^ Divinat.  in  Caecil.  c.  14;  cf.  also  Brut.  LXXXVIII;  pro  Quinct.  c.  10. 

»«*  Cicero,  Brut.  LXXXVIII,  303;  XCII,  317. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 57 

was  perhaps  because  of  this  that  Cicero  wrote  of  him:  "dicebat 
melius  quam  scripsit".^^®  There  seems  to  be  no  evidence  that 
Hortensius   made   extemporary    speeches. ^^*^ 

^Orat.  XXXVIII,  132;  also  pro  Cluent.  50,  140;  Quint.  Ill,  i.  19;  XI, 
3,  8.  Cicero  mentions  a  speech  of  his  for  Messala  {Brut.  XCVI,  z^)  as 
published  in  the  same  words  in  which  he  delivered  it  as  if  such  a  proceeding 
were  unusual  (compare  Pliny,  Ep.  IX,  13,  18).  Cicero  has  told  us  that  the 
speeches  of  the  Roman  orators  were  written  out  for  publication  after  they 
were  delivered  {Brut.  XXIV,  91;  93;  Pliny,  Ep.  IV,  9,  23;  Sen.  Suas.  15). 
This  would  naturally  lead  to  changes  being  made  in  the  speeches.  Cf.  Pliny, 
Ep.  I,  20,  and  Sallust,  de  Coniur.  Cat.  31,  of  Cicero's  first  Catilinarian.  Such 
was  the  practice  of  Calvus  (Tac.  Dial.  XXIII,  10,  with  Gudeman's  note), 
Crassus  and   Sulpicius    {Brut.   XLIII,    160;   XLIV,    164;   Quint.   X,   7,  30). 

Nepos  says  of  Cicero's  Corneliana "iisdem  paene  verbis  edita 

est perorata"  (Nep.  fr.  45  H)  ;  compare  Pliny,  Ep.  IX,  13,  18. 

Pliny  the  Younger  usually  published  his  speeches  in  a  revised  and  enlarged 
form  {Ep.  IX,  28,  5;  13,  23),  and  his  example  was  followed  by  Fronto  {Ep. 
p.  184  Nab.). 

It  seems,  however,  that  the  speeches  in  many  cases  must  have  been  left 
practically  as  they  were  prepared  beforehand,  since  a  copy  of  a  speech  was 
sent  to  friends  of  the  author  immediately  after  its  delivery  or  after  so  short 
an  interval  that  much  revision  would  be  unlikely.  Cf.  Cicero,  ad  Brut.  II,  3; 
ad  Att.  XVI,  15;  XIV,  17a  and  ad  Fam.  IX,  14,  7;  ad  Att.  XIV,  11,  and  XV, 
20;  VII,  9;  VI,  3;  XIV,  20;  XV,  lb;  XV,  3,  and  XV,  4;  ad  Earn.  Ill,  11 ;  V, 
4;  XI,  13;  19;  XV,  6;  ad  Att.  II,  20. 

Quintilian  (XII,  10,  55)  believes  that  if  possible  the  orator  should  deliver 
his  speech  in  the  same  words  in  which  he  wrote  it  beforehand;  he  adds, 
however:  "but  if  the  time  allowed  by  the  judge  prevents  him  from  doing  so 
by  its  shortness,  much  that  might  have  been  said,  will  be  withheld;  but  the 
speech,  if  published  will  contain  the  whole ;  but  what  may  have  been  intro- 
duced to  suit  the  capacity  of  the  judges,  will  not  be  transmitted  unaltered 
to  posterity,  lest  it  be  thought  the  offspring  of  his  judgment,  and  not  a 
concession  to  circumstances." 

Bossuet  wrote  his  speeches  for  publication  after  he  had  made  them: 
Croiset,  IV,  547.    See  Mathews,  p.  23. 

Pliny  considered  writing  speeches  a  serious  matter  and  worthy  of  every 
effort:  Ep.  VI,  33,  i ;  VII,  6,  6;  13,  2;  30,  4;  VIII,  3,  i.  His  letters  were  as 
carefully  prepared  as  his  speeches.  They  were  given  to  the  public  in  success- 
ive portions  during  the  author's  life  (Mommsen,  PHny  [Tr.j  p.  2).  Compare 
Pliny,  Ep.  VII,  20;  87;  V,  10. 

So  Symmachus  intended  his  letters  to  be  read  by  future  generations  {Ep. 
VIII,  2)  and  polished  and  elaborated  his  style  (I,  i),  especially  in  the  earlier 
letters  (VII,  18)  and  advised  his  friends  to  do  the  same  (VIII,  16;  VIII,  i; 
compare  VII,  18;  V,  85).  Sidonius  also  says  that  his  letters  are  really  in- 
tended for  posterity  (Apoll.  Sid.  Ep.  I,  i;  VIII,  i).  He  revised  them 
carefully,  a  task  in  which  his  friends  aided  him  (I,  i). 

•^  Cf.  Cicero,  ad  Att.  XIII,  33,  3. 


158  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

Neither  is  there  any  evidence  that  Cicero,  Hortensius'  rival, 
ever  trusted  to  the  inspiration  of  the  moment.  All  his  pleadings 
were  done  after  careful  preparation,^^^  and  he  constantly  endea- 
vored to  improve  himself.  He  says  in  the  Brutus  :^^^  "1  spared 
no  time  to  improve  and  enlarge  my  talents,  such  as  they  were, 
by  every  exercise  that  was  proper  for  the  purpose,  but  particularly 
by  that  of  writing".  The  fact  that  he  was  subject  to  "stage 
fright"  ^^^  would  make  it  unlikely  that  he  would  dare  to  neglect 
preparation. 

Of  the  six  speeches  against  Verres,  we  know  that  only  one  was 
delivered.^^*  The  first  actio  was  merely  an  introduction  to  the 
prosecution  proper,  an  exordium,  as  it  is,  indeed,  called  by  Asconius 
Pedianus.  The  rest  of  the  trial  consisted  merely  in  examination  of 
witnesses  and  documents.  ^^^  Then  after  Verres,  foreseeing  a  verdict 
against  him,  had  gone  into  exile,  Cicero  elaborated  his  materials  in 
the  five  remaining  speeches  of  the  second  actio.  Although  they 
were  never  delivered,  ^^®  Cicero  speaks  as  if  Verres  had  appeared 
at  the  second  hearing,  and  as  if  these  orations  might  still  have  an 
influence  on  the  final  decision.  They  have  all  the  marks  of  speeches 
intended  to  be  delivered,  including  expressions  which  have  the  air 
of  unpremeditated  discourse. ^^^ 

The  speech  Pro  L.  Murena  is  interesting  as  showing  a  variation 
between  the  form  in  which  the  speech  was  delivered,  and  that  in 
which  it  was  published.     In  one  part  (sec.  57),  only  the  heads  of 

^^  Brutus,  XC,  312.  See  also  the  story  told  in  Plutarch  (Apophtheg. 
205  E-F)  of  his  freeing  the  slave  who  came  to  tell  him  that  a  cause  which  he 
was  to  plead  had  been  postponed  for  a  day. 

On  the  effect  of  Cicero's  eloquence  see  Quint.  II,  16,  7 ;  VIII,  3,  3;  X,  2, 
18 ;  Pliny,  N.  H.  VII,  13 ;  Plut.  Cicero,  c.  39,  and  elsewhere. 

'"'Brut.  XCIII,  321. 

^'  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  26,  121 ;  pro  Deiot.  I,  i ;  pro  Cluent.  18,  57 ;  Div.  in 
Caec.  13,  41;  Acad.  II,  20,  64;  Plut.  Cic.  35;  Quint.  XI,  i,  44. 

•^  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20. 

««Cf.  Plut.  Cic.  c.  7. 

"^''Cf.  Brougham,  Vol.  IV,  412,  on  such  speeches. 

^  Cf .  Verr.  IV,  10,  26 :  the  supposed  forgetting  of  the  mechanic's  name, 
and  the  being  prompted  by  som-e  one  in  the  audience  (quoted  by  Pliny,  Ep. 
I,  20).  Cf.  also  Verr.  IV,  25,  61 ;  V,  3,  5 ;  on  such  devices  which  Pliny  {Ep. 
I,  20)  implies  were  very  freely  used,  see  Quint.  IX,  2,  59-62,  who  also  quotes 
the  Cicero  passage. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 59 

the  sections  de  Postumii  criminibus,  de  Servii  adolescento,  are 
given.^^® 

The  speech  for  Milo  which  we  possess  is  a  subsequent  revision  of 
the  speech  actually  delivered. ^^^  Cicero  is  believed  to  have  been 
so  alarmed  at  the  hostile  demonstrations  of  the  opposite  party,  that 
in  spite  of  Pompey's  protection,  he  broke  down  utterly  in  his 
speech.*^''  Both  speeches  existed  in  antiquity.  Quintilian  mentions 
them  both,  referring  to  the  first  as  the  "oratiuncula"  which  Cicero 
pronounced  on  the  occasion,*^^  and  from  which  he  gives  a  quota- 

**  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  20,  7 : "Ciceronis  pro  Murena,  pro  Vareno, 

in  quibus  brevis  et  nuda  quasi  subscriptio  quorundam  criminum  solis  titulis 
indicatur ;  ex  his  apparet  ilium  permulta  dixisse,  cum  ederet  omisisse."  These 
sections  may  have  been  lost.  Another  possible  explanation  is  that  Cicero, 
following  the  method  described  by  Quintilian  (p.  163),  extemporized  these 
sections. 

'^^Asconius  Pedianus,  in  Milonianam  31  (Wag.)  fin.:  "manet  autem  ilia 
quoque  excepta  eius  oratio :  scripsit  vero  banc  quam  legimus  ita  perfecte  ut 
iure  prima  haberi  possit." 

*°*'Cf.  Asconius  Pedianus,  31  Wag.,  42  K.  S. :  "Cicero  cum  inciperet 
dicere,  exceptus  (est)  acclamatione  Clodiorum,  qui  se  continere  ne  metu 
quidam  circumstantium  militum  potuerunt  (cf.  pro  Mil.  1-2).  Itaque  non  ea 
qua  solitus  erat  constantia  dixit.  Manet  autem  ilia  quoque  excepta  eius  oratio ; 
scripsit  vero  banc  quam  legimus  ita  perfecte,  ut  iure  prima  haberi  possit." 

Cicero  of  course  would  not  mention  such  a  misfortune.  He  says  in  one 
of  his  letters  {ad  Fam.  Ill,  10)  :  "What  marks  of  confidence  has  he  (Pom- 
pey)  not  desired  me  to  receive  in  the  most  complimentary  form?  Finally 
with  what  courtesy,  with  what  patience  did  he  endure  my  vigorous  pleading 
for  Milo,  though  it  was  at  times  opposed  to  his  own  proposals!  With  what 
hearty  good  will  did  he  take  measures  to  prevent  my  b^ing  reached  by  the 
hostile  feelings  aroused  by  that  crisis,  protecting  me  by  his  advice,  his  in- 
fluence, and  finally  by  his  arms !"  At  the  time  however,  Pompe/s  kindness 
did  not  seem  to  inspire  Cicero  with  much  confidence.  Cf.  Plut.  Cic.  c.  35. 
According  to  Asconius  (p.  41)  it  was  the  praetor  at  the  trial  and  also  one  of 
Milo's  advocates  who  asked  for  the  guard,  but  Cicero  may,  of  course,  have 
added  his  request.  Cf.  Cic.  ad  Att.  IX,  7b;  compare  Cic.  de  opt.  gen.  orat. 
c.  IV,  10;  Dio  Cassius  XL,  53-54- 

As  an  exercise,  exercitationis  gratia,  Brutus  wrote  a  speech  pro  Milone : 
Ascon.  Ped.  p.  42  Or.;  36  K-S;  Schol.  Bob.  p.  276;  Quint.  Ill,  6,  93;  X,  i,  23; 
5,  20,  with  Spalding's  note.  Cestius  Pius  wrote  a  speech  in  Milonem,  Senec. 
Contr.  Ill,  praef.  16. 

For  other  speeches  by  Brutus  see  Cicero,  ad  Att.  XIV,  i,  2;  Brut,  21; 
ad  Att.  XV,  lb,  2;  XIII,  46,  2;  XII,  21,  i ;  Quint.  IX,  3,  95;  Tac.  Dial.  21; 
Ann.  IV,  34  (spurious  speeches)  ;  Diomed.  GL.  I,  367;  Schol.  Lucan.  II,  234, 
ed.  Usener. 

*°' Quint.  IV,  3,  17. 


l60  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

tion.***^  He  speaks  elsewhere  of  the  oration  which  Cicero  "wrote 
on  behalf  of  Milo,  and  which  he  has  left  to  us"  thus  referring  to 
the  speech  subsequently  published.*^^  The  first  speech  was  extant 
in  the  time  of  Asconius  Pedianus,  having  been  taken  down  by  short- 
hand writers.*^* 

**  Quint.  IX,  2,  54;  cf.  also  Schol.  Bob.  346,  13. 

*"  Quint.  IV,  2,  25.  Dio  Cassius  XL,  54  says:  tovtov  yag  tov  viiv 
qpeponevov  65  xal  vkeq  tov  MiJicovog  xoxe  Xex^evxa  XQOvcp  Jto§'  vaxegorv 
xal  xaxa  oxoXriv  dvadapariaas  8YQa'il)E.  Dio  then  tells  the  story  that  when 
Cicero  sent  the  improved  edition  of  his  speech  to  Milo  in  exile,  the  latter 
remarked  how  fortunate  it  was  that  such  a  speech  had  never  been  actually 
delivered,  since,  in  that  case,  he  should  not  have  been  enjoying  such  delicious 
fish  at  Marseilles.  Dio  adds,  that  the  jest  was  not  so  much  intended  to  ex- 
press Milo's  content  with  his  present  fortune,  as  to  rebuke  Cicero  for  such 
an  ill-timed  display  of  his  oratorical  powers,  when  Milo  could  no  longer 
profit  by  them. 

*°*Ascon.  Ped.  42  (31,  ed.  Wag.  )  : manet  ilia  quoque  ex- 

cepta   eius    oratio.     Cf.    Schol.    Bob.    276,    10: et    extat    alius 

(Ciceronis)  praeterea  liber  actorum  pro  Milone. 

The  first  appearance  of  short-hand  writers  seems  to  have  been  at  the 
time  of  the  debate  in  the  senate  upon  the  punishment  of  the  Catilinarian  con- 
spirators. Diogenes  Laertius  (II,  481)  seems  to  imply  that  Xenophon  took 
down  lectures  by  some  stenographic  process,  and  Demosthenes  (XXIX,  11) 
speaks  of  a  slave  who  was  to  take  down  the  testimony  of  a  witness,  but  there 
is  no  direct  mention  of  the  practice  before  the  time  of  Cicero.  Short-hand 
writers  were  employed  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  Catilinarian  conspirators 
to  take  down  the  speech  of  Cato.  Plutarch  (Cat.  Min.  c.  23)'  says:  "This 
only,  of  all  Cato's  speches,  it  is  said  was  preserved;  for  Cicero,  the  consul, 
had  disposed  in  various  parts  of  the  senate  house,  several  of  the  most  expert 
and  rapid  writers,  whom  he  had  taught  to  make  figures  comprising  numer- 
ous words  in  a  few  short  strokes,  as  up  to  that  time  they  had  not  used  what 
we  call  short-hand  writers,  who  then,  as  it  is  said,  established  the  first  ex- 
ample of  the  art."  It  has  been  suggested,  however,  that  this  is  a  confusion  with 
the  speech  attributed  to  Cato  by  Sallust  (Coni.  Cat.  52)  ;  cf.  Velleius  Pater. 
II,  35»  3;  Schneider,  F. :  de  Catone  Uticensi  oratore,  Z.  f.  A.  W.  1843,  112. 

These  short-hand  writers  were  known  as  actuarii,  notarii,  and  in  Greek 
as  xa3cvYoaq)oi  and  crrmeioYQaqpoi.  The  "plures  librarii"  who  were  sent  by 
Cicero  to  take  down  the  words  of  the  Agrarian  Law  {de  Lege  Agra.  II,  s) 
may  have  been  notarii. 

The  invention  of  the  notae  is  usually  ascribed  to  Cicero's  freedman.  Tiro, 
whose  collection  of  abbreviations,  the  Notae  Tironianae,  are  still  extant.  (On 
his  ability  see  Cic.  ad  Att.  XIII,  25;  ad  Fam.  XVI,  4;  Aul.  Cell.  VI,  3,  8). 
Isidorus.  (Orig.  I,  22)  says:  "vulgares  notas  Ennius  primus  mille  et  centum 
invenit.  Notarum  usus  erat  ut  quidquid  pro  contione  aut  in  iudiciis  diceretur, 
librarii  scriberent  simul  astantes  divisis  inter  partibus,  quot  quisque  verba  et 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   l6l 

quo  ordine  exciperet.  Romae  Tullius  Tiro,  Ciceronis  libertus,  commentus  est 
notas  sed  tantum  praepositionum.  Post  eum,  Vipsanius,  Philargyrus,  et 
Aquila,  libertus  Maecenatis,  alius  alias  addiderunt.  Denique  Seneca  contracto 
omnium  digestoque  et  auctore  numero  opus  effecit  in  quinque  milia."  Else- 
where (I,  21-26)  Isidorus  devotes  six  chapters  to  the  different  kinds  of  notae. 
The  freedman  of  Maecenas,  Aquila,  mentioned  by  Isidorus,  is  spoken  of  by 
Dio  Cassius  (55,  7)1  where  Maecenas  himself  is  said  to  have  been  the  in- 
ventor of  the  system  which  Aquila  afterwards  taught.  Seneca  (£/>.  20)  says 
the  system  was  the  invention  of  f  reedmen :  "Quid  verborum  notas,  quibus 
quamvis  citata  excipitur  oratio?  Vilissimorum  manicipiorum  ista  commenta 
sunt."  Cf.  also  Quint.  XI,  2,  25;  Valerius  Probus  de  lur.  Not.  Signif.  I. 

Quintilian  complains  that  the  pleadings  extant  under  his  name,  except 
one  published  by  himself,  were  ruined  by  the  blunders  of  short-hand  writers 
who  took  them  down  carelessly  (VII,  2,  24).  Augustus  rejects  some  speeches 
ascribed  to  Julius  Caesar  as  the  productions  of  blundering  short-hand  writers 
who  were  not  able  to  keep  pace  with  Caesar  (Suet.  lul.  55).  In  Suetonius' 
Life  of  Titus,  3,  stenographic  signs  are  alluded  to :  "E  pluribus  comperi  notis 
quoque  excipere  velocissime  solitum  (Titum)  cum  amanuensibus  suis  per 
ludum  iocumque  certantur."  A  method  of  secret  writing  is  spoken  of  in 
Suet.  Aug.  88,  and  we  are  told  that  Julius  Caesar  used  a  cipher  (Plut.  Caes. 
17;  cf.  Aul.  Cell.  XVII,  9). 

After  the  Christian  era  began  short-hand  writing  was  largely  used  among 
the  Christians  for  taking  down  sermons  and  speeches.  St.  Augustine  {Ep. 
141)  speaks  of  an  episcopal  meeting  at  Carthage  at  which  eight  stenographers 
were  employed  in  relays  of  two. 

For  other  allusions  to  short-hand  writing  see  Cic.  ad  Att.  XIII,  25;  XIII, 
32  (see  Becker's  Callus,  trans.  Metcalff,  p,  32,  n,  4)  ;  Sull.  14,  15;  Quint.  XI, 
2,  25 ;  Ausonius'  Epigram  Ad  Notarium  {Ep.  146)  ;  Lucian,  Encom.  Demosth. 
44;  Pliny,  Ep.  Ill,  5,  15;  IX,  36;  Seneca,  Ep.  72;  Ep.  90,  25;  Martial,  XIV, 
208;  Petronius,  53;  Tacitus,  Ann.  V,  4;  Suet.  Aug.  27  (probably);  Spart. 
Hadr.  3;  Manil.  IV,  197;  and  an  amusing  passage  in  Seneca's  Mort.  Claud. 
(9),  where  the  stenographer  cannot  keep  pace  with  the  fluent  Father  Janus; 
also  Libanius,  I,  133-134;  I43;  HI,  440,  7;  Eunapius,  p.  79;  Paul.  Dig.  37,  i, 
6.  The  term  occurs  often  in  sepulchral  inscriptions:  C.  I.  L.  II,  31 19;  III, 
1938;  VI,  9704,  9705;  Orell.  Inscr.  2876,  2274,  3186. 

Among  modern  treatments  of  the  subject  may  be  mentioned  Lehmann, 
O. :  Quaestiones  de  Notis  Tironis  (1869);  Wild,  P.:  Einiges  ilher  Tiro  u. 
die  Tironischen  Noten  (1870);  Schmitz,  W. :  Studien  su  den  Tiron.  Noten 
(1879);  Breidenbach,  H, :  Zwei  Ahhandlungen  Uber  die  Tironischen  Noten 
(1900)  ;  Pauly,  Realency.  V,  s.  v.  notae  and  notarius;  Schmitz,  Commentarii 
Notarum  Tironianarum,  Leipzig,  1893;  Rose  V.,  Hermes,  VIII,  303. 

Nowadays  when  a  speech  is  published  in  good  form,  there  is  a  great 
possibility  that  there  was  a  manuscript  in  advance,  or  that  the  speech  was 
remodelled  in  the  proof. 

The  speech  attributed  to  Cato  by  Sallust  {Con.  Cat.  52)  contains  nothing 
of  what  Cicero  says  occurred  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  {ad  Att.  XII,  21 ; 


1 62  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

Of  the  Philippics,  the  Second  was  never  delivered. *^^  Antony's 
reply  to  the  First  Philippic  was  delivered  in  Cicero's  absence,  but 
the  orator  has  written  his  speech  in  the  form  of  an  answer  delivered 
immediately  after  his  opponent's  oration,  although  it  was  not  pub- 
lished until  after  Antony's  departure  from  Rome.**^®  Cicero  speaks 
in  terms  of  praise  of  the  First  Philip  pic, ^^"^  and  contemptuously  of 
Antony  as  coming  "primed  for  the  contest,  after  studying  his 
speech  for  many  days  in  the  villa  of  Metellus",*^^  and  in  the  Second 
Philippic,^^^  taunts  him  with  having  composed  his  reply  to  the  First 
Philippic  with  the  aid  of  the  rhetorician,  Sextius  Clodius. 


cf.  pro  Sest.  6i ;  Vellei.  Pater.  II,  35,  3;  Plut.  Cat.  Min.  23).  Catiline's  ad- 
dress (Sallust,  Con.  Cat.  52)  may  be  shown  to  have  been  different  from  a 
comparison  with  Cicero,  pro  Mur.  25  and  Plut.  Cicero,  14.  It  might  be  argued 
that  Memmius'  speech  (Jug.  30)'  was  a  reproduction  of  an  actual  speech  from 
some  publication,  for  Sallust  says:  "decere  extumavi  unam  ex  tam  multis 
orationem  eius  perscribere."  However,  had  this  been  so,  Sallust  would  rather 
have  used  exscrihere.  Besides  huiuscemodi  shows  that  he  did  not  profess 
to  give  the  exact  words.  The  speeches  are  not  authentic,  nor  does  Sallust 
pretend  that  they  are,  (cf.  Con.  Cat.  50,  52,  57;  Jug.  9,  24,  30,  85).  They  are 
such  compositions  as  Thucydides  (I,  22)  declares  the  speeches  in  his  own 
history  to  be.  Seneca's  praise  of  the  speeches  (Controv.  Ill,  praef.  8)  is  from 
the  artificial  point  of  view  of  the  scholastic  rhetorician.  The  judgment  of 
Licinianus  (p.  42,  ed.  Bonn.)  is  equally  perverse.  Pompeius  Trogus  (Justin. 
38,  3,  11)  rightly  censures,  from  a  historian's  point  of  view,  the  use  of 
speeches    made  by  Sallust  and  Livy. 

On  this  subject  see  H.  Snorr  v.  Carolsfeld:  d.  Reden  u.  Brief e  bei  Sail., 
Leipzig,  1888. 

*^  Preparation  is  admitted,  sec.  79. 

*^  The  usual  attempts  to  make  the  speech  seem  one  actually  delivered  are 
not  wanting:  Quid  est?  num  conturbo  te?  (32)';  Nescio  quid  conturbatus 
esse  videris  (36);  Quid  est?  num  mentior?  (61);  miserum  me!  etc.  (64); 
At  etiam  adspicis  me,  et  quidem,  ut  videris,  iratus  (76)  ;  non  dissimulat, 
patres  conscripti :  apparet  esse  commotum ;  sudat,  pallet,  etc.  (84)  ;  haec  te,  si 
ullam  partem  habet  sensus,  lacerat,  haec  cruentat  oratio  (86);  11 1;  hunc 
unum  diem,  unum,  inquam,  hodiernum  diem,  etc.  (112) 

On  such  outbursts  as  that  in  section  64,  see  Sarcey,  p.  147,  and  150  (the 
case  of  Coquelin). 

*^ad  Fam.  XII,  2;  XII,  25. 

*^ad  Fam.  XII,  2. 

*^  Phil.  II,  42;  84.  Cf.  also  Phil.  X,  2,  6:  Quod  verbum  tibi  excidet.  ut 
saepe  fit,  fortuito;  scriptum,  meditatum,  cogitatum  attulisti. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   163 

The  Second  Philippic  was  sent  to  Atticus,  and  it  was  left  to  his 
discretion  whether  it  should  be  locked  up  or  published. ^^'^  Else- 
where Cicero  speaks  of  the  oration  as  not  likely  to  get  abroad  unless 
the  constitution  should  be  restored,*^^  and  expresses  a  wish  that  the 
time  would  come  when  it  might  have  free  circulation.*^^ 

In  Cicero's  letters  there  are  many  references  to  his  productions 
and  the  attention  he  bestowed  upon  them,*^^  but  perhaps  the  best 
proof  of  his  care,  outside  of  the  speeches  themselves,  are  his  works 
on  rhetoric.  No  one  who  composed  such  detailed  treatises  on 
oratory,  would  be  likely  to  fail  to  use  care  in  a  real  oratorical  effort. 
A  good  description  of  his  general  method  of  preparation  for  a 
speech,  is  given  by  Quintilian,  who  tells  us  that  "it  is  the  general 
practice  among  pleaders  who  have  much  occupation,  to  write  only 
the  most  essential  parts,  and  especially  the  commencements  of  their 
speeches;  to  fix  the  other  portions  that  they   bring   from  home 

*^°  ad  Att.  XV,  13.  The  constant  parallelism  in  thought  and  language 
in  ad  Fam.  XII,  2  and  Phil.  II,  shows  that  the  letter  was  written  while 
Cicero  was  composing  the  speech:  ad  Fam.  XII,  2,  and  Phil.  II,  33;  XII, 
2,  16,  and  Phil.  II.  7,  and  63;  XII,  2,  21,  and  Phil.  II,  6,  42,  63,  76,  84,  104; 

XII,  3,  and  Phil.  II,  31,  34. 
""^  ad  Att.  XV,  13a. 

*^ad.  Att.  XVI,  II.  Cicero  goes  on  to  say  that  he  will  make  certain  cor- 
rections recommended  by  Atticus. 

In  one  case  a  speech  had  gotten  into  circulation  without  Cicero's  knowl- 
edge. This  was  the  violent  speech,  in  Curionem  et  Clodium,  which  Cicero  had 
taken  pains  to  suppress.  In  some  way  the  oration,  which  was  not  delivered, 
got  into  circulation,  and  Cicero  proposes  to  extricate  himself  from  any 
difficulties  into  which  it  might  bring  him  by  denying  the  authorship  of  the 
speech  {ad  Att.  Ill,  12;  III,  15). 

*"arf  Att.  I,  14;  19,  10;  20,  6;  II,  i,  i;  IV,  2;  IV,  13;  16;  17;  XIII,  12; 
48;  ad  Fam.  I,  9;  IV,  2;  IX,  20,  i;  X,  28;  XI,  6;  XIII,  12;  Brut.  II,  4; 
ad  Quint.  Fr.  II,  i;  III,  i;  Compare  ad  Att.  II,  7;  ad  Fam.  IX,  12.  In  one 
case  his  attention  was  called  to  a  mistake  in  one  of  his  orations  which  was 
already  in  Atticus'  hands   for  publication.     He  writes  to  Atticus    {ad  Att. 

XIII,  44)  to  order  his  librarii  to  make  the  correction  in  all  the  copies,  but 
in  spite  of  this  the  error  still  remains  {pro  Lig.  33).  Cf.  also  ad  Att.  XII, 
6,  3,  where  his  attention  had  been  called  to  a  misquotation  in  the  Orator  (IX, 
29). 

Cicero  was  not  scrupulous  as  to  the  accuracy  with  which  his  published 
orations  corresponded  with  his  spoken  ones.  One  reason  why  he  could 
not  insert  something  in  his  speech  pro  Ligario  was  that  it  was  already  pub- 
lished: ad  Att.  XIII,  20. 


164  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

(i.  e.  prepared  in  their  minds)  in  their  memory  by  meditation,  and 
to  meet  any  unforeseen  attacks  with  extemporaneous  replies.  That 
Cicero  adopted  this  method  is  evident  from  his  own  memo- 
randa."*^* 

*"X,  7,  29-30.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  written  portions  were 
memorized,  since  they  are  particularly  separated  from  those  other  parts 
which  the  orator  is  to  fix  in  his  mind  by  meditation. 

Commentariis :  "from  his  note-books"  (Frieze).  These  outline  speeches 
or  skeletons  are  mentioned  again  by  Quintilian,  IV,  i,  69;  cf.  Hieronym. 
Apol,  ad  Rufin.  2,  469  Vail.  Quintilian  goes  on  to  say:  "But  there  are  also 
in  circulation  memoranda  of  other  speakers,  which  have  been  found,  per- 
haps, in  the  state  in  which  each  had  thrown  them  together,  when  he  was 
going  to  speak,  and  have  been  arranged  in  the  form  of  books;  for  instance, 
the  memoranda  of  the  causes  pleaded  by  Servius  Sulpicius,  three  of  whose 
orations  are  extant;  but  these  outlines  (commentarii)  of  which  I  am  now 
speaking  (those  of  Sulpicius)  are  so  carefully  arranged  that  they  appear  to 
me  to  have  been  composed  by  him  to  be  handed  down  to  posterity.  (31). 
Those  of  Cicero,  which  were  intended  only  for  his  particular  occasions, 
his  freedman.  Tiro,  collected"  (or,  abbreviated,  produced  in  even  shorter 
form  than  Cicero  left  them)'. 

Quintilian  believes  that  if  one  has  prepared  a  speech,  one  ought  to 
memorize  it  and  not  use  notes.  On  other  occasions,  when  the  speaker  got 
up  only  the  heads  and  extemporized  from  them,  he  might  use  notes.  This 
idea  is  not  unlike  that  of  Alcidamas,  who,  would  allow  the  speaker  to  pre- 
pare the  argument,  and  only  demands  that  the  words  be  extemporary;  cf. 
p.  31. 

As  to  notes,  Quintilian  says  (X,  7,  31)  :  "I  approve  of  short  notes 
(brevem  adnotationem)  and  of  small  memorandum  books  (libellos)  which 
may  be  held  in  the  hand  and  on  which  we  may  occasionally  glance;  but  the 
method  which  Laenas  recommends,  of  reducing  what  we  have  written  into 
an  outline  (commentarium)  and  heads,  I  do  not  like;  for  our  very  de- 
pendence on  these  summaries  begets  negligence  in  committing  our  speech  to 
memory  (ediscendi),  and  disconnects  and  disfigures  our  speech.  I  even 
think  that  we  should  not  write  (i.  e.  make  notes  of)  at  all  what  we  design 
to  deliver  from  memory  (omitting  non,  with  the  best  MSS) ;  for  if  we  do, 
it  generally  happens  that  our  thoughts  fix  us  to  the  studied  portions  of  our 
speech,  and  do  not  allow  us  to  try  the  fortune  of  the  moment.  Thus  the 
mind  hangs  in  suspense  between  the  two,  having  lost  track  of  what  was  writ- 
ten and  not  finding  out  the  new  ideas  in  the  subject". 

Elsewhere  (XI,  3,  142)  Quintilian  speaks  of  a  certain  manner  in  which 
the  orator  should  hold  his  hand  "unless  it  hold  a  memorandum  book,  a 
practice  which  should  not  be  much  followed,  for  it  seems  to  imply  a  dis- 
trust of  the  memory".  This  passage,  as  well  as  the  former  one,  implies  that 
the  speech  is  to  be  memorized. 

Commentarii  are  clearly  the  outlines,  summaries,  or  skeletons  of  speeches 
(cf.  Quint.  Ill,  8,  58;  compare  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  23,  10,  and  c.  26,  11)  although 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   165 

Among  Cicero's  contemporaries  Julius  Caesar  *^'^  was  perhaps 
the  most  renowned.  We  know  little  about  his  method  as  a  speech- 
maker  but  what  little  evidence  we  have  would  point  to  preparation 
beforehand.  He  delivered  "set  speeches",  and  we  are  told  that 
he  was  particularly  attentive  to  his  diction.*^^ 

Of  the  practice  of  Augustus  Caesar  we  have  a  detailed  descrip- 
tion. We  are  told  that  "from  his  early  youth  he  devoted  himself 
with  great  diligence  and  application  to  the  study  of  eloquence  and 
the  other  liberal  arts.  In  the  war  of  Modena,  notwithstanding  the 
weighty  affairs  in  which  he  was  engaged,  he  is  said  to  have  read, 
written,  and  declaimed  every  day.  He  never  addressed  the  senate, 
the  people,  or  the  army  except  in  a  premeditated  speech,  although 
he  did  not  lack  the  ability  to  speak  extempore  on  the  spur  of  the 
occasion.  Lest  his  memory  should  fail  him,  as  well  as  to  prevent  the 
loss  of  time  in  getting  his  speeches  by  heart,*"  he  made  it  a  practice 


some  scholars  have  taken  the  word  to  mean  the  finished  speeches  (cf.  Peter- 
son on  Tac.  Dial.  23,  10).     The  meaning  seems  plain  from  Seneca,  Contr. 

III,  praef.  6:  sine  commentario  numquam  dixit  (Severus)  nee  hoc  com- 
mentario  contentus  erat  in  quo  nudae  res  ponuntur,  sed  maxima  parte  per- 
scribebatur  actio  (actio,  =  oratio;  cf.  Gudeman  on  Tac.  Dial.  c.  17,  22). 

For  other  passages  in  which  notes,  outlines,  or  note-books  are  used  see 
Cicero,  Brut.  XLIV,  164;  ad  Fam.  V,  12;  Quint.  I,  8,  19;  HI,  6.  59;  8,  58; 

IV,  I,  69;  Seneca,  Controv.  I,  praef.  11;  II,  i,  6;  III,  praef.  6;  IX,  2,  2;  Ep. 
XV,  5;  Asconius,  tog.  cand.  p.  87  O;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  6,  i;  22,  11;  III,  5,  17; 
VI,  5,  6;  Traj.  10,  95  (96)';  Pliny,  N.  H.  Ill,  17;  Suet.  Aug.  27,  64;  Hieronym. 
adv.  Rufin.  I,  i ;  compare  Sarcey,  p.  iii;  pp.  150-151. 

For  notes  of  lectures,  etc.,  see  Plato,  Theatetus,  143A;  Euclides,  after 
he  returns  home  makes  notes  of  the  conversation  between  Theatetus  and 
Socrates;  Cicero,  de  Or.  I,  2;  ad  Att.  XIII,  21;  Diog.  Laert.  II,  13,  i;  VI, 
I,  4;  Quint.  I,  praef.  7;  II,  11,  7;  Lucian,  Hermot.  2.  Students  in  taking 
notes  of  their  lectures  were  sometimes  assisted  by  slaves  who  wrote  short- 
hand :  Liban.  II,  293,  16. 

*^^0n  Caesar  see  Plut.  Caes.  cc.  2,  3,  4;  Cic.  de  Or.  sees.  252,  261;  Brut. 
sees.  72,  253;  Quint.  X,  i,  114;  XII,  10,  11;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  21,  21;  Ann.  XIII, 
3;  Pliny,  A^.  H.  VII,  25;  Vellei.  Pater.  II,  36;  Apul.  Apol.  95;  Fronto,  Ep. 
p.  123;  Hirtius,  B.  G.  VIII,  praef.  7. 

"°  Plut.  Caes.  c.  5 ;  c.  7,  a  studied  speech ;  Cat.  Min.  769C.  On  Caesar's 
speeches  cf.  Cic.  Brut.  262;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  21;  Aul.  Cell.  IV,  16,  8;  V,  13,  6; 
XIII,  3,  5;  Suet,  Jul.  55,  and  64;  Non.  354;  Schol.  Bob.  297,  and  317. 

*"  in  ediscendo  tempus  absumeret :  ediscere,  to  learn  by  heart,  to  commit 
to  memory.     Pliny,  Ep.  VI,  i,  i,  tells  of  a  would-be  orator,  who  wrote  out 


1 66  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

to  read  them.  In  his  intercourse  with  individuals,  and  even  with 
his  wife,  Livia,  upon  subjects  of  importance,  he  wrote  on  his  tablets 
all  he  wished  to  express,*^^  lest,  if  he  spoke  extempore,  he  should 
say  more  or  less  than  was  proper.  He  delivered  himself  in  a  sweet 
and  peculiar  tone,  in  which  he  was  diligently  instructed  by  a  master 
of  elocution;  but  when  he  had  a  cold,  he  sometimes  employed  a 
herald  to  deliver  his  speeches  to  the  people".*^^ 

Augustus'  successor,  Tiberius,  prepared  his  speeches,*^"  although 
he  rendered  his  style  so  obscure  by  excessive  affectation  and  ab- 


all  his  speeches,  but  was  unable  to  get  them  by  heart  (non  posset  ediscere)  ; 
Quint.  X,  7,  31. 

*"It  was  quite  usual  to  deliver  a  set  harangue  from  a  written  copy  to 
a  great  man  even  in  an  informal  meeting  (cf.  Cic.  ad  Att.  XI,  10).  As  an 
illustration  of  this  custom  of  Augustus,  Dio  Cassius  (55,  15  ff.)  has  preserved 
a  speech  of  this  kind  between  him  and  Livia,  and  also  two  of  the  same  sort 
between  Agrippa  and  Maecenas  (52,  i  flf.)-  Tacitus  (Ann.  IV,  39)  says 
such  was  the  custom  in  the  time  of  Tiberius,  though  seeming  to  imply  that 
it  no  longer  held  in  his  own  time.  Cf.  also  Plutarch,  Caesar,  c.  17.  There 
are  instances  of  this  reading  of  a  set  speech  elsewhere,  though  perhaps  in 
some  cases  it  was  necessitated  by  difference  in  language.  Sulla  (Plut.  Sull. 
13)'  says  to  Aristion's  ambassadors:  "My  good  friends,  you  may  put  up 
(dvaA,a|j,(3dv(o  cf.  Ages.  20)  your  speeches  and  begone.  I  was  sent  by  the 
Romans  not  to  take  lessons  but  to  reduce  rebels  to  obedience".  We  hear 
that  Pompey  (Plut.  Pomp.  79)  as  he  was  being  brought  to  Egypt  just  before 
his  murder  "took  a  little  book  in  his  hand,  in  which  was  written  out  an 
address  in  Greek  which  he  intended  to  deliver  to  King  Ptolemy  and  began 
to  read  it  (dveYivcoaxev)."  See  also  the  story  told  in  Montaigne,  Vol.  I, 
196,  London,  1902. 

*^'  Suet.  Aug.  84.  Cf.  also  Aul.  Cell.  X,  24,  2.  Speeches  by  Augustus 
are  mentioned  by  Suet.  Aug.  8;  Claud.  61;  Dio  Cass.  53,  30;  54,  28;  35; 
5S,  2;  Quint.  XII,  6,  i;  Serv.  on  Aen.  I,  712;  Nikol.  Dam.  Aug.  3. 

***'  See  Suet.  Tib.  2S,  where  he  hands  his  speech  to  his  son  Drusus  to 
read.  Cf.  Tac.  Ann.  XIII,  3.  He  attended  the  lectures  of  the  rhetorician 
Theodorus  of  Gadara:  Sen.  Suas.  Ill,  8;  Suet.  Tib.  57;  Quint.  Ill,  i,  17. 
The  following  productions  of  his  are  mentioned:  funeral  speeches  (Suet. 
Tib.  6;  Aug.  100;  Tac.  Ann.  IV,  12;  Seneca,  Cons,  ad  Marc.  15,  3;  Dio 
Cass.  57,  11;  compare  Tac.  Ann.  I,  52),  accusations  and  defenses  (Suet. 
Tib.  8;  Tac.  Ann.  Ill,  12;  cf.  Meyer,  orat.  rom?  553),  edicts,  etc.  (Tac. 
Ann.  I,  81;  II,  63;  III,  6;  53;  IV,  40;  Suet.  Tib.  61;  67;  Dom.  20;  cf.  also 
Tac.  Ann.  IV,  16;  38.  Suidas,  s.  v.  KaiaaQ  TiPEQiog  says:  e'voaipev  E.-iiYQaM'- 
M-axa  xai  xexvTiv  'otitoqixtiv.  According  to  H.  Flack,  Rhein.  Mus.  XXXVI, 
319,  this  is  an  error  due  to  confusion  with  the  rhetorician  Tiberius. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   167 

struseness  that  he  was   thought   to  speak  better  extempore  than 
in  a  premeditated  discourse.*^^ 

Claudius  published  some  speeches,*^^  and  we  are  told  that  he 
did  not  lack  elegance  when  his  speech  was  premeditated.*-"^  There 
is  no  record  of  his  ever  having  tried  to  extemporize.  A  speech  of 
his,  engraved  on  a  tablet  of  brass,  has  been  found  at  Lyons.  It  re- 
lates to  a  question  mentioned  by  Tacitus,  namely,  the  admission  of 
Gauls  into  the  Roman  Senate.*^*    Tacitus  has  not  given  the  argument 

■^^  Suet.  Tib.  70.  Tacitus  (Ann.  IV,  31)1  Gomments  on  the  same  arti- 
ficialities of  style,  but  adds  that  when  he  spoke  as  an  advocate  he  delivered 
himself  with  readiness  and  volubility.  A  speech  of  his  against  Maroboduus 
(Tac.  Ann.  II,  63)  was  extant  in  Tacitus'  time.  Tacitus  may  have  cited 
it  from  the  "acta  senatus".  The  letter  of  Tiberius  later  quoted  by  Tacitus 
{Ann.  VI,  6)  is  given  with  one  very  slight  variation  by  Suetonius  {Tib. 
67).  The  letter  was  probably  extant  in  the  acta  senatus,  but  it  seems  strange 
that  both  authors  should  have  quoted  exactly  the  same  amount.  Suetonius 
may  have  quoted  from  Tacitus,  or  both  from  some  earlier  authority. 

Records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  senate,  the  comitia,  and  the  courts 
seem  always  to  have  been  kept  by  the  magistrates,  but  their  duty  was 
limited  to  the  depositing  and  safe-keeping  of  them.  They  could  be  con- 
sulted, of  course,  but  were  not  made  known  to  the  general  public.  Julius 
Caesar  in  B.  C.  59  caused  the  official  acts  of  the  people,  as  well  as  those  of 
the  senate  to  be  published  (Suet.  Jul.  20).  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
publication  of  them  extended  beyond  Rome,  and  it  is  probable  that  scribes 
at  Rome,  by  private  arrangement,  forwarded  copies  of  the  official  announce- 
ments to  such  magistrates  abroad  as  desired  them.  Cicero  constantly  as- 
sumes that  such  people  receive  them  (cf.  ad  Fam.  XII,  8;  22,  i ;  23,  2;  28,  3). 
Caesar  seems  to  have  had  a  special  report  made  to  him  of  the  acta  diurna 
(Cic.  ad  Fam.  IX,  16,  4),  a  practice  continued  by  Augustus,  who,  however, 
prohibited  the  publication  of  the  acta  senatus  (Suet.  Aug.  36,  64).  A 
senator  was  especially  appointed  by  Tiberius  to  edit  the  acta  senatus  (Tac. 
Ann.  V,  4),  which  minutes  were  sent  to  Caesar  in  his  absence  (Suet.  Tib. 
7Sy.  It  is  supposed  that  this  official  is  the  same  as  the  curator  actorum 
senatus  mentioned  in  inscriptions  {Inscr.  Henzen.  5447;  5478,  and  elsewhere). 
Both  acta  senatus  and  acta  diurna  are  frequently  mentioned);  cf.  Cicero,  ad 
Att.  Ill,  8;  15;  VI,  2;  ad  Fam.  I,  2;  XII,  23;  II,  15;  Suet.  Tib.  8;  Cal.  8; 
Tac.  Ann.  XII,  24;  XIII,  31;  Asconius,  Milon.  19,  44,  47,  49;  Pliny,  Ep.  VII, 
Z3',  IX,  15;  Seneca,  Benef.  II,  10;  III,  16;  Quint.  IX,  3;  Juvenal.  II,  136; 
VII,  104;  Amm.  Marcell.  XXII,  3,  4,  and  elsewhere. 

Cf .  E.  Hubner,  //.  Suppl.  Bd.  Ill,  564  ff. ;  594  ff. ;  Crutwell,  Hist.  Rom. 
Lit.  pp.  206-207. 

*^  Suet.  Claud.  38-41. 

*^'Tac.  Ann.  XIII,  3-4. 

*^Ann.  XI,  24.  Cf.  Dio  Cass.  60,  2,  i.  Seneca  {Apocolocyn.  5,  7,  11) 
represents  Claudius  as  anything  but  eloquent.     In  section  14,  he  speaks  so 


1 68  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

in  the  form  and  words  of  what  probably  is  a  copy  of  the  original 
speech,  but  has  expressed  the  substance  with  his  usual  brevity .*^^ 

It  is  usually  agreed  that  Nero's  speeches  were  the  work  of 
Seneca.*^^  The  encomium  on  Claudius,  pronounced  by  Nero  at  the 
funeral  of  his  predecessor^  was,  according  to  Tacitus,  the  production 
of  Seneca/^^  The  historian  adds  that  ''old  men  who  make  it  their 
recreation  to  compare  the  present  and  the  past,  took  notice  that 
Nero  was  the  first  Roman  emperor  who  required  the  aid  of  an- 
other's eloquence:  for  Caesar  the  Dictator  rivalled  the  most  dis- 
tinguished orators;  and  the  eloquence  of  Augustus  was  prompt 
and  flowing  as  became  a  prince.    Tiberius  also  possessed  the  art,  so 

far  as  nicely  balancing  his  words  was  concerned ; 

even  the  disordered  mind  of  Caligula  *-®  did  not  impair  his  power 
of  speaking;  nor  in  Claudius  would  you  feel  the  lack  of  elegance 
whenever  his  speech  was  premeditated". 

The  speech  to  the  Senate,  after  the  panegyric,  was  also  the 
work  of  Seneca.^^^  The  orations  in  which  the  new  Emperor  pledged 
himself  to  clemency  were  given  to  the  world  by  Seneca  through  the 
mouth  of  the  Emperor  ''either  to  show  the  purity  of  the  precepts 


poorly  that  there  is  need  of  some  one  versed  in  "the  Claudian  tongue"  to 
understand  him.     This  is,  of  course,  an  exaggerated  account. 

It  has  been  thought  that  Claudius  in  writing  the  speech  availed  himself 
of  that  found  in  Livy  IV,  3;  cf.  A.  Zingerle,  Zfo.  G.  XXXVII,  255.  On  a 
comparatively  recently  discovered  edict  of  his  see  Mommsen.  Hermes,  IV, 
99,  p.  107 ;  F.  Kenner,  Ein  Edict  des  K.  CI.,  Vienna,  1869. 

*^^Cf.  Ann.  XV,  62,',  Tacitus  {Ann.  XV,  67)  gives  as  a  reason  for  quoting 
a  passage  exactly,  the  fact  that  it  was  not  published. 

Tacitus  does  not  claim  that  the  speeches  are  genuine :  Hist.  1,6;  29 ;  36 ; 
83;  Agric.  29;  Ann.  I,  58;  II,  37,  38,  71 ;  III,  50. 

""^  Dio  Cass.  61,  3. 

*''  Ann.  XIII,  13,  3;  Dio  Cass.  61,  p.  690;  Quint.  VIII,  5,  18. 

*^^The  orators  who  took  part  in  the  contests  instituted  by  Caligula 
clearly  wrote  their  speeches,  for  those  who  were  defeated  were  compelled 
"scripta  sua  spongea  linguave  deleri"  (Suet.  Calig.  20).  Cf.  Sn^t.  Calig.  53; 
Tac.  Ann.  V,  i. 

"^^Tac.  Ann.  XIII,  4.  Dio  says  (Bk.  61)  that  the  Senate  ordered  this 
speech  of  Nero's  to  be  engraved  on  a  pillar  of  solid  silver,  and  to  be  read 
publicly  every  year  at  the  time  when  the  consuls  entered  upon  their  magis- 
tracy. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   169 

he  instilled  or  in  ostentation  of  his  talents".*^^  Tacitus  would  not 
leave  Nero  even  his  poetry,  claiming  that  the  different  lines  were 
the  work  of  men  who  had  talent  for  composing  verses  and  that  these 
were  tacked  on  to  the  Emperor's  effusions,  however  crude  the 
latter  might  be.*^^  With  some  inconsistency,  however,  Tacitus 
dramatically  represents  Nero  as  claiming  ability  both  as  a  prepared 
and   as   an   extemporary   speaker.*^^ 

Of  the  rest  of  the  Emperors,  Titus  only  seems  to  have  possessed 
ability  as  a  speaker.*^^ 

After  Galba  had  been  declared  emperor,  Nymphidius  attempted 
to  make  himself  Caesar  before  Galba's  arrival.  He  came  forward 
to  speak  to  the  soldiers  "carrying  in  his  hand  a  speech  written  by 
Cingonius  Varro,  which  he  had  learned  by  heart" ;  **^*  and  later  Gal- 
ba himself,  when  he  adopted  Piso  as  his  heir,  strove  to  read  to  the 
soldiers  a  prepared  speech.*^^  Otho's  speech  before  his  departure 
against  VitelHus  was  written  for  him.*^®  Valentinus  spoke  against 
the  policy  of  extending  the  bounds  of  the  Empire  in  a  prepared 
speech,*"  and  when  Vitellius  resigned  the  government,  he  made  his 
declaration  "from  a  writing  which  he  held  in  his  hand".*^^ 

^^Tac.  Ann.  XIII,  11.  The  speeches  mentioned  by  Suetonius  {Nero,  7) 
were  probably  written  by  Seneca.  On  the  speech  mentioned  in  Nero,  24, 
see  Berl.  Wschrfkl.  Phil.  1889,  106.  A  speech  by  Nero  when  the  cities  of 
Asia  decreed  a  temple  to  Tiberius  is  mentioned  by  Tacitus  {Ann.  IV,  15). 

^^  Ann.  XIV,  16.  Suetonius,  Nero,  52,  denies  this  charge  on  the  evidence 
of  note-books  of  Nero's  which  he  (Suetonius)  possessed. 

*"  Ann.  XIV,  55 ;  Nero  says  to  Seneca :  "That  I  am  thus  able  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment  to  combat  your  studied  reasonings,  is  the  first  benefit  which 
I  acknowledge  to  have  derived  from  you,  who  have  taught  me  not  only  to 
speak  on  subjects  previously  considered,  but  also  to  deliver  my  sentiments 
extemporaneously." 

Because  of  his  care  for  his  voice  he  had  his  speeches  read  for  him ;  cf . 
Suet.  Nero,  25,  46;  Tac.  Ann.  XVI,  27. 

■*®^A  speech  by  Vespasian  is  mentioned  by  Tacitus,  Hist.  II,  80;  cf. 
C.  I.  L.  14,  3608. 

^  Plut.  Galha,  c.  14,  30 :  Xoyov  xiva,  xo^i^wv  ev  PiPXitp  YEYQa^pievov  i)jt6 
KiYYCoviou  BdQQO)vo5  ov  EHM-ejiEXexrixEi  jiQog  xohc,  oxQaxitoTag  eIjieiv.  c.  15,  4: 
KiYYtoviog  6  xov  ^oyov  yq^'^^w? 

*^  Plut.  Galha.  c.  23,  14:  dglanEvou  8e  xa  (j-ev  Xiyziv  ev  xcp  axQaxoniha^. 
xd  §£  dvaYivtooxEiv.  So  Mamercus  tried  to  deliver  a  long  premeditated 
speech  to  the  people  of  Syracuse:  Plut.  Timol.  34. 

"*'  Tac.  Hist.  I,  90. 

^  Tac.  Hist.  IV,  68. 

■"'Suet.  Vitell.  15;  cf.  also  Tac.  Hist.  Ill,  zy- 


170  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

Titus  could  extemporize  in  both  Greek  and  Latin,  in  prose  and 
verse, ^^^  but  all  Domitian's  letters,  speeches,  and  edicts  were  drawn 
up  for  him/**' 

Seneca  the  Elder  mentions  several  orators  who  were  famous 
for  their  abilities  as  extemporary  speakers.  He  says  of  Porcius 
Latro :  **^  ''He  did  not  know  how  to  cease  his  studies  and  resume 
them.  When  he  set  himself  to  write  days  were  joined  to  nights, 
and  without  rest  he  tasked  himself  more  heavily,  and  did  not  cease 

or  fail Often  when  he  had  toiled  the  whole  night 

through,  he  went  from  his  very  meal  immediately  to  declaim;**^ 

*®®Suet.  Tit.  3;  cf.  6;  compare  Pliny,  N.  H.  praef.  5;  11. 

**"  Suet.  Dom.  20. 

**^Controv.  I,  praef.  13-14,  18,  20-24;  IX,  praef.  3;  X,  praef.  15;  for 
specimens  of  his  declamations  see  Controv.  VII,  16,  16  ff. ;  II,  11,  and  else- 
where. Cf.  also  Quint.  IX,  2,  91 ;  Suet,  de  Gr.  p.  99  (Rffsch.) 

*^  Quintilian  considers  declamation  by  far  the  most  useful  of  all  exercises 
(II,  10,  i;  compare  X,  5,  14-16;  cf.  Seneca,  Controv.  I,  praef.  12).  Many, 
indeed,  think  that  it  is  in  itself  sufficient  to  form  oratory,  for  no  excellence 
in  continued  speaking  can  be  specified  which  is  not  found  in  it  (II,  10,  2)1 
Declamation  is  an  exercise  preparatory  to  pleading  in  the  forum  (IV,  2,  29), 
although  it  lacks,  of  course,  the  spirit  and  force  of  actual  pleading  (X,  2, 12). 
The  orator  is  brought  up  in  the  schools,  and  on  the  manner  in  which  he  de- 
claims will  depend  the  manner  in  which  he  will  plead  (IX,  2,  81).  The  prac- 
tice has  degenerated  because  of  the  absurd  themes,  out  of  all  relation  to  real 
life,  which  have  been  chosen  as  its  subjects  (II,  10,  12;  V,  12,  17-20;  X, 
2,  II  ff. ;  X,  5,  14;  Tac.  Dial.  c.  35,  17;  c.  31,  3).  It  ought  to  keep  in  view 
the  pleading  for  which  the  speaker  is  being  trained  (II,  10,  3  ff.,  especially, 
12;  compare  XI,  i,  55  ff.)'.  Declamations,  if  they  are  but  adapted  to  real 
causes,  and  are  made  similar  to  actual  pleadings,  are  of  the  greatest  service, 
not  only  while  the  orator  is  still  studying,  but  even  after  his  studies  may  be 
said  to  be  completed,  and  he  has  obtained  reputation  in  the  forum  (X,  5,  14; 
compare  Cic.  de  Or.  I,  ^2),  149). 

The  practice  of  speaking  on  fictitious  cases  as  if  they  were  real  pleadings 
in  the  forum  or  public  councils  became  common  among  the  Greeks  about  the 
time  of  Demetrius  Phalereus;  it  may  have  been  invented  by  him  (Quint.  II, 
4,  41-42). 

Declamation  was  not  solely  a  matter  for  the  schools.  Cicero  {Brut. 
XC,  310)  says:  commentabar  declamitans  (sic  enim  nunc  loquuntur)  saepe 
cum  M.  Pisone,  et  cum  Q.  Pompeio,  aut  cum  aliquo  cottidie ;  idque  f  aciebam 
multum  etiam  Latine  sed  Graece  saepius;  (cf.  also  Quint.  XII,  6,  7;  Cic. 
ad  Att.  IX,  4,  9;  Brut.  LXXXIX,  305).  He  carried  on  this  practice  of  de- 
claiming in  Greek  till  the  time  of  his  praetorship,  when  he  was  forty  years 
old,  (Suet,  de  Gr.  I;  Seneca,  Controv.  I,  Praef.  11  ff. ;  Quint.  VIII,  3,  54; 
XII,  II,  6;  Cicero,  ad  Div.  9,  16)'.     Pompey,  Antony,  Augustus,  and  Nero 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   I7I 

.     .     .     .     .     after  dinner  he  almost  always  toiled  by  lamplight. 

His  memory  was  indeed  excellent  by  nature,  but  still 

very  much  aided  by  art.  He  never  read  over  what  he  was  going  to 
say  for  the  purpose  of  learning  it;  he  had  learned  it  when  he  had 
written  it.  What  would  seem  the  more  wonderful  in  him  was  the 
fact  that  not  slowly  and  carefully,  but  with  almost  the  same  speed 
with  which  he  spoke,  he  wrote.  Those  who  twist  about  what  they 
have  written,  who  consult  about  individual  words,  necessarily  fix 
at  last  what  they  have  so  often  pondered,  in  their  own  mind;  but 

also  followed  this  practice  (Suet,  de  Gr.  I  ff.;  Suet.  Nero,  10).  Crassus,  too, 
made  use  of  declamation  (Cic.  de  Or.  I,  34,  154)  as  did  Asinius  Pollio 
(Seneca,  Controv.  IV,  praef.  2;  compare  I,  praef.  12,  and  III,  praef.  i),  and 
Caius  Piso  (Cic.  Brut.  LXXVIII,  272). 

This  was  the  good  side  of  declamation,  but  there  was  another  which  has 
been  vividly  pictured  by  Petronius  (cc.  i,  2).  The  declaimers  have  been  the 
bane  of  all  true  eloquence  (compare  Quint.  IV,  3,  2)';  by  the  unreal  and 
hackneyed  themes  on  which  they  employ  their  empty  compositions  they 
have  overthrown  all  that  is  manly  in  oratory.  The  youth  they  train  be- 
comes totally  perverted  by  hearing  and  seeing  nothing  which  has  any  con- 
nection with  real  life  or  human  affairs.  When  the  scholars  of  the  declaimers 
enter  the  forum,  they  look  as  if  they  were  transported  into  a  new  world 
(Petron.  i;  Quint.  I,  2,  18;  II,  10,  8-9;  X,  5,  16-18;  XII,  11,  14  ff.;  Seneca, 
Controv.  VII,  praef.  7  ff.;  IX,  praef.  3;  praef.  5. 

The  word  declamare  in  the  sense  of  a  rhetorical  exercise,  seems  first  to 
have  come  into  use  in  the  time  of  Cicero  (cf.  Brut.  XC,  310;  Sen.  Controv. 
I,  praef.  12),  although  the  practice  may  go  back  to  ^schines  and  his  school 
at  Rhodes  (cf.  n.  299).  These  exercises  were  held  both  in  public  and  in 
private  (Sen.  Controv.  Ill,  12;  18).  There  were  public  competitions  in  Greek 
and  Latin  declamation  and  poetry  from  the  time  of  Caligula  (Suet.  Calig. 
20;  C.  I.  L.  IX,  1663;  2860;  cf.  Juvenal,  I,  44.) 

In  the   schools,   pupils   wrote   their   themes,   memorized   them-,   and   de- 
claimed to  father  and  friends  (Quint.  II,  7,  i ;  X,  5,  21;  compare  X,  5, 14  ff.). 
Cf.   Pliny,  Ep.  VI,  6,  6,  of  students  declaiming:   sicut  in   scholis   discipuli 
sedentes  de  scripto  legunt,  stantes  declamant.  Juvenal  VII,  152: 
Nam  quaecunque  sedens  modo  legerat,  haec  eadem  stans 
Perferet  atque  eadem  cantabit  versibus  isdem. 
Persius,  III,  45;  compare  Petronius,  6. 

Cf .  Hulsebos,  G.  H. :  de  Educatione  et  Institutione  apud  Romanos 
(Utrecht,  1875)  PP-  102-133. 

Parts  of  speeches,  such  as  Galba's  peroratio  (Cic.  Brut.  XXXIII,  127) 
and  dictation  lessons,  usually  parts  of  the  poets,  were  learned  by  heart  (Cic. 
ad  Quint.  Fr.  Ill,  i,  4;  compare  Persius,  I,  28;  Horace,  Ep.  I,  20,  17;  I,  18, 
12;  Sat.  I,  10,  74;  Juv.  VII,  226;  Statins,  Theb.  XII,  815. 


172  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

the  memory  of  those  whose  pens  are  swift  is  slower.  In  him  not 
only  was  there  natural  excellence  of  memory,  but  the  highest  art 
both  for  comprehending  and  keeping  what  it  ought  to  hold,  so  that 
it  even  retained  whatever  declamations  he  had  spoken.  His  note- 
books, therefore,  were  empty;  he  said  that  he  wrote  in  his  mind. 
He  so  spoke  those  things  which  he  had  meditated  that  his  memory 
failed  him  in  no  word". 

L.  Vinicius  pleaded  cases  extempore,  but  did  not  care  for  the 
name  of  doing  so.**^ 

Cassius  Severus  would  always  write  most  of  his  case  out  in  full, 
and  yet  when  taken  by  surprise  and  forced  to  speak  off-hand,  he 
made  a  better  impression  than  when  he  had  prepared  his  speech.*** 
Seneca  mentions  Haterius  **^  and  Argentarius  **^  as  fluent  extem- 
porary speakers.  Albucius  would  never  speak  on  the  spur  of  the 
moment,  not  because  he  lacked  ability  to  do  so,  but  because  he 
thought  that  he  lacked  it.**^ 

Pliny  the  Younger  speaks  in  terms  of  admiration  of  Pompeius 
Saturninus,  who,  whether  he  spoke  after  preparation  or  extempore, 
pleaded  with  no  less  warmth  and  energy  than  elegance  and  finish.**^ 

Pliny  himself  used  to  revise  his  speeches  after  delivery,  and 
made  additions  to  them  before  he  published  them.**^     He  spent  a 

*^Conirov.  II,  5,  20. 

***  Controv.  Ill,  praef.  p.  359.  Cf .  Robert,  P. :  de  Cassii  Severi  eloquentia, 
Paris,  1890. 

*^ Controv.  IV,  praef.  7.  Cf.  Seneca,  Ep.  40,  10;  Tac.  Ann.  IV,  61,  5; 
Hieronym.  on  Euseb.  Chr.  a.  Abr.  2040.  For  a  specimen  of  his  declamation 
see  Sen.  p.  541  (Kl.).  Cf.  Cima,  A.:  de  Q.  Haterio  oratore,  in  his  Saggj  di 
Studj.  lat.,  Flor.  1889.    Cf.  p.  68,  n.  286. 

**^  Controv.  IX,  3,  13. 

**'  Controv.  VII,  praef.  2-3. 

*«£/>.  I,  16,  2;  7. 

***£/>.  IX,  13,  23;  28,  5.  The  advice  of  Quintilian  and  Cicero,  as  well  as 
that  of  Pliny,  is  meant  for  the  court  orator.  The  Romans  had  no  other  type 
in  mind.  The  man  whom  Quintilian,  for  example,  trains,  will  be  a  finished 
advocate.  He  strongly  condemns  those  pleaders  who  do  not  take  their  pro- 
fession seriously  enough  to  give  to  their  cases  due  preparation:  II,  21,  15-16 
(compare  Cic.  de  Or.  I,  12,  51)  ;  XII,  8,  2  ff.;  5  ff.;  14-21 ;  cf.  Seneca,  Controv. 
X,  praef.  2;  Amm.  Marcell.  XXX,  4,  15  ff.;  19;  Athen.  I,  10. 

For  the  duties  of  a  Roman  advocate  and  the  problems  that  beset  him 
see  Forsyth,  Hortensius :  an  Historical  Essay  on  the  Office  and  Duties  of  an 
Advocate. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 73 

great  deal  of  time  over  his  cases.  Speaking  of  the  sudden  and  un- 
expected postponement  of  a  case  on  which  he  was  to  speak,  Pliny 
calls  it  "an  accident  extremely  agreeable  to  me,  who  am  never  so 
well  prepared  but  that  I  am  glad  of  gaining  further  time".*^^  From 
many  of  his  letters  we  see  that  he  was  almost  over  careful  in  the 
revision  of  his  productions.*^^ 

Among  the  works  of  Apuleius  there  is  found  a  curious  produc- 
tion: the  so-called  prologue  to  the  de  deo  Socratis^^^  It  is,  in 
reality,  not  a  prologue  at  all,  but  a  pretended  extemporary  speech, 
or  rather,  the  pretended  answer  to  a  challenge  to  speak  extempore, 
delivered  before  the  main  lecture.*^^  The  production  is  placed  by 
some,  with  far  greater  appropriateness,  as  it  seems,  in  the  collec- 
tion of  passages  called  the  F/onda/^*  which  Walter  Pater  says 
are  **no  impromptu  ventures  at  random,  but  rather  elaborate,  carved 
ivories  of  speech,  drawn,  at  length,  out  of  the  rich  treasure-house 
of  a  memory  stored  with  such,  and  as  with  a  fine  savour  of  old  musk 
about  them".*^^ 

This  Prologus  seemingly  consists  of  five  parts,  though  some 
scholars  recognize  but  three,*^®  and  it  is  with  the  first,  or  first 
two  of  these  that  this  discussion  is  concerned. 

*^Ep.  V,  21,  9.  Cf.  also  the  anecdote  told  of  Cicero  (Plut.  Apophtheg. 
205  E-F)  referred  to  in  n.  391. 

«*Cf.  Martial,  X,  19;  Pliny,  Ep.  I,  2,  i ;  I,  8,  2 ;  II,  5,  i ;  III,  13,  18; 
IV,  9,  ^2,',  14,  I ;  V,  8,  6;  13,  I ;  20,  2;  VI,  31,  i ;  VII,  17,  i ;  30,  4;  VIII,  3,  2; 
19,  2;  21,  4;  IX,  5,  8;  8,  9;  9,  4;  10,  2;  15,  2;  16,  2;  28,  5;  35,  2;  36,  2; 
40,  I ;  also  his  advice  to  Fuscus  Ep.  VII,  9,  4. 

^*  Cf .  Helm,  R. :  de  prooemio  Apuleianae  quae  est  de  deo  Socratis 
orationis. 

^  Such  brief  speeches,  serving  as  introductions  were  termed  jtQoXaXiai. 
Lucian  has  two :  JtgoXaXid  6  Aiovvoog  and  nQoXakia  6  'HgaxXfig.  His  Swans 
and  Amber  probably  belongs  in  the  same  class.  On  the  subject  see  Stock,  Al. : 
de  prolaliarum  usu  rhetorico  (Diss.  Konigsberg). 

****  Cf.  p.  140,  n.  310.  Cf.  Goldbacher,  A. :  de  L.  Apulei  Mad.  Floridorum 
quae  dicuntur  origine  et  locis  quihusdam  corruptis  (Leipzig  1867)  ;  Jeltsch, 
T. :  de  Apulei  Floridis  (1868)';  Cruttwell,  Hist.  Rom.  Lit.  p.  471. 

*^^  Marius  the    Epicurean,  c.  XX. 

*^  P.  Thomas  in  his  edition  (Leipzig,  1908)  divides  the  prologue  into 
five  parts,  which  he  discusses  in  Actis  Acad.  Belg.  a.  1900,  p.  143  ff. ;  J.  v.  d. 
Vliet  in  his  edition  (1900)  of  the  Florida  makes  but  three  divisions,  p.  190  ff. 
Cf.  also  his  article  in  Mnemosyne,  1888,  N.  S.  XVI,  p.  156  ff. 


174  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN    ANTIQUITY 

In  reply  to  those  who  challenge  him  to  speak  extempore,  Apu- 
leius  will  deliver  what  he  calls  an  unpolished  attempt  (rudimentum). 
He  makes  the  venture,  he  says,  with  the  better  chance  of  success, 
because  his  premeditated  speeches  (meditata  sum  dicturus  incogitata) 
have  already  been  approved.***^  He  is  not  afraid  that  he  will  fail  to 
please  in  trivial  things  since  he  has  given  satisfaction  in  more 
serious  matters.*^^  That  his  audience  may  see  whether  he  is  the 
same  when  he  speaks  on  the  sudden  (repentinus)  as  he  is  when  pre- 
pared (praeparatus),  he  bids  them  test  him  in  this  rough  and  un- 
finished sketch  (schedio  incondito),  if  there  be  any  who  have 
never  heard  any  of  his  off-hand  efforts  (subitaria). 

There  follows  a  statement  of  the  old  idea  that  the  audience  is 
more  kindly  disposed  toward  extemporary  speeches  (in  rebus 
subitariis  venia  prolixior).*^®  The  things  which  we  recite  (quae 
scripta  legimus)  after  we  have  written  them,*^^  says  Apuleius, 
will  be  such  as  they  were  when  they  were  composed,  even  though 
you  (the  audience)  are  silent,  but  those  which  are  produced  on  the 
spot  (quae  inpraesentiarum)  and  as  it  were,  in  combination  with 
you,  will  be  such  as  you  shall  have  made  them  by  your  favor. *®^ 

The  second  division,  or  second  part  of  the  first  division,  opens 
by  quoting  an  impromptu  (de  repentino)  saying  of  the  philosopher 
Aristippus,  and  contains  an  elaborate  comparison  of  extemporary 
speeches  and  rubble  masonry;  for  nothing  can  be  at  the  same  time 
hurried  and  deliberate,  says  Apuleius,  nor  can  anything  possess 
at  once  the  merit  of  elaboration  and  the  grace  of  dispatch. 

Such  a  pretended  extemporization  would  put  an  audience  in 
good  humor  if  a  prepared  speech  was  to  follow.  If  the  orator  were 
really  compelled  to  make  an  extemporary  speech,  a  number  of  such 
ready-prepared  morceaux  could  easily  be  pieced  together  with  ex- 
temporary oratory,  to  form  a  creditable  if  not  very  profound 
speech,  a  practice  which  was  common  among  the  earlier  sophfsts.*^^ 

**^  On  his  delivered  and  published  speeches  see  Apol.  55,  73,  24. 
*^The  idea  of  extemporary  speeches  as  trivial  compared  with  prepared 
ones  would  not  have  pleased  Alcidamas,  cf.  p.  29  ff. 
*^  Cf .  p.  32  and  n.  153. 

**°This  implies  that  the  speeches  were  memorized. 
*"  Compare  p.  39,  n.  153. 
*«=^Cf.  p.  95ff. 


.  PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1/5 

For  our  knowledge  of  the  practice  of  those  of  later  times,  we  are 
mainly  dependent  on  the  pages  of  the  Greek  writer  Philostratus. 

Among  the  later  sophists  there  were  few  who  did  not  profess 
skill  as  extemporary  speakers.  Their  whole  training  was  designed 
to  give  them  this  ability,  and  after  it  was  gained  constant  practice 
was  necessary  to  retain  it.  There  were  certain  ones  who  laid  claim 
to  wonderful  ability,  and  while  some  were  able  to  prove  that  their 
boasts  were  true,^^^  others  were  shown  to  be  utter  frauds.  In 
general,  however,  the  later  sophists  seem  to  have  been  hard-working, 
painstaking  teachers.  Few  of  them  resembled  Hippias  of  Elis. 
They  were  accustomed  to  study  by  night  in  order  to  perfect  them- 
selves.^^* Even  after  they  had  aquired  the  ability  to  make  extem- 
porary speeches,  constant  practice  was  necessary  to  keep  it  alive.*^^ 

Pliny  gives  a  good  description  of  one  of  the  better  sophists, 
Isaeus :  "He  always  speaks  extempore,  and  his  lectures  are  as 
finished  as  though  he  had  spent  a  long  time  over  their  written 
composition He  suggests  several  subjects  for  dis- 
cussion, allows  his  audience  their  'choice,  sometimes  permits  them 

even  to  name  which  side  he  shall  take,   rises and 

begins.     At  once  he  has  everything  almost  equally  at  command. 

His  reflections  are  frequent,  his  syllogisms  also  are 

frequent,  a  result  not  easily  obtained  even  with  the  pen.  As  for  his 
memory,  you  would  hardly  believe  what  it  is  capable  of.  He  re- 
peats from  a  long  way  back  what  he  has  previously  delivered 
extempore,  without  missing  a  single  word.  This  marvellous  faculty 
he  has  acquired  by  dint  of  great  application  and  practice,  for  night 
and   day   he   does   nothing,    hears   nothing,    says   nothing   else."*^® 

Among  the  sophists  who  are  mentioned  as  clever  extemporary 
speakers  are   Scopelian,*®^   Lollianus,*^*  Marcus,*®^  Polemo,*^®  Her- 

^  Philostratus  mentions  Hermocrates,  who  impressed  his  audience  with 
his  wonderful  power  to  grasp  his  theme  ev  axiYM'fj  xov  xaiQOv  (p.  612). 

**^Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  p.  518;  Liban.  I,  75,  15;  Syn.  Dion.  II;  Themistius, 
312B. 

^  Pliny,  Ep.  II,  3,  4;  Himer.  Or.  XVII,  6;  XXIV,  4;  Luc.  Encom.  Dem. 
36. 

*^Ep.  II,  3,  I   fif.;   Philostr.  I,  20,  i;  Juvenal,  III,  74- 

^'  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  21,  i  ff. 

*«*  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  23,  2. 

'''  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  24,  3-4. 

*'°  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  25,  9. 


176  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 

odes  Atticus,  *^^  who  once,  like  Demosthenes,  forgot  his  speech, 
Aristocles,*^^*  Antiochus,*^^  who  wrote  prepared  speeches  as  well 
as  extemporized,  Alexander,*^*  Heraclides,  who  forgot  his  extem- 
porary speech,*^'^  Hippodromus,  who  could  speak  extempore  with 
the  readiness  of  one  reading  what  was  familiar  to  him,*^^  and 
others.*" 

Some  sophists  were  accustomed  to  withdraw  from  the  room 
for  a  short  space  of  time  after  their  theme  had  been  given  them, 
in  order  to  collect  their  thoughts  in  private.*^^  One  of  them  re- 
quired half  a  day  to  put  his  argument  into  shape,*^^  and  Proclus 
demanded  that  his  theme  be  given  him  the  day  before.*^^  Once 
the  sophist  Proaeresius,  made  an  extemporary  speech  which  the 
short-hand  writers  took  down.  When  he  had  finished,  he  bade  them 
look  to  their  copy,  and  proceeded  to  give  the  whole  speech  over  again 
without  missing  a  single  word.*®^  If  the  speech  was  really  ex- 
temporary, this  certainly  was  a  wonderful  feat,  but  it  reminds  one 
strongly  of  another  sophist,  Philager,  who  was  accustomed  to  re- 
peat his  own  speeches  and  pass  them  off  as  extemporary.  It  is 
said  that  Herodes  Atticus,  hearing  of   this  practice  of   Philager, 

*^^Fhi\ostr.  Vit.  Soph.  11,  I,  35-36' ^oyov ^xjteaeiv ;  I,  25, 13. 

*"  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  3,  i. 

*''  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  4,  4- 

*'*  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  5,  3 ;  also  p.  618. 

*"*  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  26,  3:  oxeSiou  Xoyou  exjieoeiv. 

*'«  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  27,  10;  cf.  also  II,  27,  5. 

*"  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  i ;  I,  8,  6;  II,  6,  i ;  7,  i ;  10,  2-3;  13,  i;  15,  i; 
17,  2;  24,  i;  25,  6;  29,  I ;  33,  2. 

*'^  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  1,  22,  10;  25,  15;  II,  19,  2.  Sometimes  the  sophist 
thought  over  his  theme  for  a  few  minutes  in  his  seat :  II,  5,  5.  Isaeus  gained 
time  for  thought  by  spending  a  few  minutes  in  arranging  his  gown :  Pliny, 
Ep.  II,  3.  Cf.  Quint.  X,  7,  22,  for  ways  in  which  a  few  minutes'  time 
for  thought  may  be  gained. 

*'"  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  20,  4. 

**°  Philostr.  II,  21,  3;  cf.  Liban,  I,  51,  3.  Much  could  be  done  with  a  day  to 
prepare  in;  Sears  (p.  263)  says  of  Thiers:  "With  an  afternoon's  preparation 
it  is  said  that  he  could  make  a  three  hour  speech  upon  any  subject  under  the 
sun,  architecture,  law,  poetry,  military  affairs,  chemistry,  astronomy,  com- 
merce, journalism,"  Thiers  gained  this  facility  by  delivering  and  redeliver- 
ing a  speech  ten  or  twenty  times  when  he  could,  before  his  public  appearance, 
and  by  extemporizing  parts  of  his  addresses  to  friends;  cf.  Sarcey,  p.  37; 

p.  159. 

*"Eunapius,  p.  79;  cf.  also  p.  70  ff. 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 77 

gained  possession  of  a  copy  of  one  of  the  sophist's  published 
speeches,  and  asked  Philager  to  discuss  the  same  theme  on  which 
the  speech  was  written.  As  the  sophist  went  on  deHvering  his 
oration,  the  declamation  was  read  aloud  from  the  written  copy. 
It  agreed  word  for  word  with  the  pseudo-extemporary  speech, 
and  Philager  was  laughed  out  of  the  room.*^^ 

Even  if  they  were  honest  in  allowing  their  hearers  to  propose 
themes,  the  sophists  could,  by  skillful  depreciation  of  the  topics 
suggested,  force  their  audience  to  choose  the  theme  on  which  they 
wished  to  speak.*^^  They  sometimes  had  friends  stationed  in  the 
audience  to  see  that  the  subject  they  desired  was  proposed.*^* 

In  spite  of  all  their  pretensions,  however,  the  sophists  were  thor- 
oughly aware  of  the  fact  that  extemporary  speech  does  not  conduce 
to  thorough  work,*^^  and  their  course  of  training  was  not  super- 
ficial. **A  central  point  in  the  Greek  sophistical  education"  says 
Mr.  Walden,*^^  "was  the  training  of  the  memory.  The  Greek 
student  of  eloquence  was  required  to  learn  by  heart  large  quantities 
of  the  ancient  authors,  as  well  as  many  of  his  own  and  his 
professor's  compositions.  Discourses  on  common  topics,  such  topics 
as  would  frequently  arise  in  the  course  of  the  student's  profession- 
al life,  were  prepared  and  given  to  be  memorized.  By  this  process 
not  only  was  the  memory  of  the  student,  or,  at  least,  the  skill  with 
which  the  student  used  his  memory,  improved,  but  his  mind  was 
filled  with  a  ready  store  of  material  and  illustration."  **^ 

Polemo  considered  that  this  learning  by  heart  was  the  hardest 
thing  of  all  in  the  sophistic  training,  and  so  laborious  did  he  deem 
it  that  he  recommended,  as  a  sufficient  punishment  for  a  criminal, 

*^  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  8,  3 :  Soxouvxi  6'  djtoaxESiateiv  avTavEYiYvtoaxexo 
T|  \iEliTTf\.  See  the  description  of  Fronto's  lecture  in  Walter  Pater's  Marius 
the  Epicurean,  ch.  XV. 

**"  Luc.  Rhet.  Praec.  18. 

***  Luc.  Pseudolog.  5. 

**''  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  9,  5 ;  24,  i ;  Syn.  Dion.  12 ;  Luc.  Rhet.  Prcvec.  20. 

***  Universities  of  Ancient  Greece,  p.  214. 

**^Liban.  II,  273.  Eunapius  says  of  himself  (p.  75)  that  at  the  age  of 
sixteen  he  had  the  ancients  at  his  tongue's  end,  and  a  like  statement  is  made 
of  Priscus  (Eunap.  p.  65)', 


178  EXTEMPORARY     SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

the  being  compelled  to  commit  to  memory  the  writings  of  the 
ancients.*®^ 

Notwithstanding  this  training  of  the  memory,  the  better  sophists 
took  all  possible  precautions  against  failure  in  their  speeches. 
Polemo,  one  of  the  greatest  of  them,  was  chosen  advocate  by  the 
people  of  Smyrna,  but  died  before  he  could  plead  their  cause. 
The  speech  he  had  prepared  was  produced  after  his  death,  read 
(dvaYV(Off0svTO<;)  in  court,  and  gained  for  the  inhabitants  of  Smyrna 
the  privilege  they  sought.*^®  Some  sophists  had  others  help  them 
prepare  their  speeches,*^*'  and  there  were  collections  of  orations, 
or  Ready  Speakers,  to  which  the  sophist  could  have  recourse  if 
he  wished.*^^  Parts  of  the  oration  might  be  prepared.  For  example, 
the  8eaXe5{?,  or  part  of  the  sophist's  speech  which  followed  the 
introduction,  though  it  might  sometimes  be  in  itself  an  introductory 
speech,  might  be  prepared  beforehand  if  the  speaker  wished,  or 
given  extempore.*®^ 

Clearly,  then,  preparation  and  even  memorization,  was  largely 
employed  by  those  sophists  and  rhetoricians  of  whom  we  only 
hear;  the  extent  of  preparation  is  more  easily  seen  when  we  come 
to  those  whose  writings  still  are  extant. 

Dio  Chrysostom's  orations  are  lectures,  although  they  often  have 
the  air  of  admirable  improvisations.*^^  Many  of  the  moral  treatis- 
es of  Plutarch  are  little  more  than  fair  copies  of  his  lectures.*^* 

The  theory  is  that  the  SiaiptPat  of  Epictetus  and  the  Cynics 
were  extemporary,  but  such  was  probably  not  the  case.  Outside  of 
Arrian's  Discourses  of  Epictetus, '^^^  there  are  collections  by  Teles, 
Musonius  Rufus  and  others.*®^ 

*^  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  p.  541 ;  for  another  interpretation  of  6.q%(sx(j. 
EX|i4,avddvEiv  see  Mayor  on  Juvenal  I,  43. 

*'"*  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  25,  19. 

*^  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  2,  i. 

*"  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  II,  i,  36;  9,  i- 

"'Himerius,  Or.  VI;  XVII;  XXII. 

"*Cf.  Von  Arnim,  H. :  Lehen  %ind  Werke  des  Dio  von  Prusa,  2nd.  ed. 
vol.  I,  171,  180  ff.,  211,  282,  286,  288,  298,  305,  308;  II,  316,  344. 

*^  Cf .  de  aud.  poet,  c,  i ;  de  Inimic.  util.  c.  i ;  an  seni  sit  ger.  c.  26 ; 
Volkmann's  Plutarch;  Fowler,  Greek  Literature,  p.  421;  Dill,  Nero  to  Marcus 
Aurelius,  p.  348. 

*^'  Cf .  Ep.  ad  Cell 

^^'On  the  SiaxQipTi  see  Norden,  die  Anfike  Kunstprosa,  I,  128  ff. ;  Hirzel, 
der  Dialog,  I,  369;  Susemihl,  Greek  Lit.  I,  36;  Burgess,  Epideictic  Literature, 
234  ff.  I  , 


PLACE  OF  EXTEMPORARY  SPEECH  IN  PRACTICE  OF  ORATORS   1 79 

The  Dissertations  of  Maximus  of  Tyre  are  typical  sophistic 
lectures,  doubtless  carefuly  prepared  beforehand.*^^  Lucian  clearly 
read  his  productions,*^^  apparently  before  publishing  them."*®^ 

^lius  Aristides  carefully  elaborated  his  productions,  since  he 
was  not  by  nature  gifted  with  tlie  ability  to  speak  extempore.  Al- 
though he  had  acquired  this  power  by  hard  labor,  he  always  re- 
quired twenty-four  hours  in  which  to  put  his  argument  into  shape.'^"^ 
Apparently  his  formal  speeches  were  read.  In  the  speech  in  honor 
of  Diana,  he  had  evidently  digressed  from  his  manuscript  and 
interpolated  extemporary  matter  in  praise  of  himself.  He  apolo- 
gizes to  one  who  attacks  him  for  this.  The  whole  thing  would  be 
pointless  had  he  not  actually  read  the  address,  and  looked  up  from 
his  manuscript  to  add  some  extemporaneous  observations.^^^ 

Himerius  insists  on  the  necessity  of  practice  and  training,  par- 
ticularly of  private  training  before  public  appearance.^"^  In  the 
list  of  his  works  as  given  by  Photius,^^^  EcL  XVII,  Or.  XII,  Or. 
XVIII,  Or.  XX,  and  one  lost  speech  are  classed  as  extemporary. 
Other  speeches  of  his  which  purport  to  be  delivered  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  and  they  may  possibly  have  been  so,  and  been  re- 
duced to  writing  afterwards,  are  Oratt.  VI,  XIII,  XV,  XXIV. 

Themistius  did  not  care  to  speak  without  preparation.  Being 
asked  on  one  occasion  to  deliver  an  extemporary  address,  he  ex- 
cuses himself  in  a  short  speech.^^*  Phidias,  he  says,  was  a  very 
clever  artist,  yet  even  he  needed  time  to  bring  his  productions  to 
perfection.  Had  anyone  asked  him,  however,  to  make  a  display  of 
his  art  at  once,  he  would  have  answered  that  he  must  be  given  the 
necessary  time  to  produce  something  new,  or  else  he  must  be  judged 
from  the  Athena  or  the  Olympian  Zeus.  So  Themistius  bids  -the 
Emperor  to  examine  some  of  his  already  completed  productions, 

*^  Cf .  Hobein,  H. :  de  Maximo  Tyrio  Quaestiones  Philologae  Selectae 
(Gottingen,  1895)  PP-  16-24. 

*"  Putnam,  E.  J. :  Lucian  the  Sophist.  Classical  Philology,  Vol.  IV, 
1909,  pp.  162-177. 

^  Fowler,  Greek  Literature,  433. 

'"°  Philostr.  Vit.  Soph.  I,  9,  i ;  3 ;  5 ;  7 ;  Eunapius,  p.  82. 

^^Cf.  Keil's  edition,  Latin  preface.  i 

=<"  Or.  XVII ;  XXIV. 

""^  Cod.  CLXV. 

«**  Or.  XXV. 


l80  EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH     IN     ANTIQUITY 

and  give  him  time  to  produce  something  new,  for  he  is  not  skillful 
in  making  extemporaneous  speeches  as  are  the  inspired  sophists.**"** 

The  orations  and  declamations  of  Libanius  ^^^  are  likewise  lec- 
tures. The  obvious  care  with  which  he  modelled  his  style  on  that 
of  the  classical  Greek  writers  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  preparation. 
His  orations  were  written,  published,  and  sent  to  friends. ^'^^ 

With  the  Emperor  Julian,  who  belongs  as  a  writer  to  the  school 
of  the  sophists,*^"®  Greek  prose  literature  may  be  said  to  end.  The 
art  and  learning  of  the  sophists  became  absorbed  by  the  teachings 
of  the  Christians,  and  after  a  brief  but  brilliant  period,  Christian 
eloquence  sank  into  obscurity. 

It  has  been  thought  best  to  end  this  discussion  at  the  point 
where  sophistic  rhetoric  ends,  but  the  question  of  the  amount  of 
preparation  and  extemporization  in  a  speech  might  still  be  consid- 
ered not  only  in  the  practice  of  the  Church  Fathers,  the  mediaeval 
Preachers,  and  the  orators  of  the  Renaissance,  when  sophistic 
eloquence  revived,  but  also  in  that  of  the  orators  of  the  French 
Revolution,  the  great  speakers  of  the  English  Parliament,  and 
our  own  American  orators,  as  well  of  the  present  as  of  the  past. 

•^ol  fiaifiovioi  Gocpioxai;  compare  Or.  XXVII,  332C. 

"*  Cf .  Sievers,  G.  R. :  Das  Leben  des  Libanius,  Berlin,  1868 ;  Petit,  Essai 
sur  Liban,  Paris  1866;  Westermann,  Gesch.  d.  Griech.  Bereds.;  Forster, 
Zur  Schriftstellerei  des  Libanios,  and  the  articles  in  Hermes  IX  and  X. 

•^•^ Liban.  Ep.  DXXV  and  DCLXX  (Wolf);  Fabricius,  Biblioth.  Graec. 
VII,  p.  378;  p.  390. 

"*Cf.  France,  Julian's  Relation  to  the  New  Sophistic. 


INDEX 


Achilles,  70,  71. 

Admission  of  preparation,  46,  48,  49, 

128. 
Aelian,  121. 
^lius,    Lucius,    15s,    writes    Cotta's 

speech, 
^schines,  132,  133,  134  ff-,  I45- 
Agathon,  104. 
Agesilaus,   146. 
Agis,  146. 
Albucius,  172. 
Alcibiades,  76,  79,  88  ff.,  probably  not 

an     extemporary     speaker,     105, 

106. 
Alcidamas,  26  ff.,  his  polemic  against 

written  speeches,  36,  42. 
Alexander  of  Macedon,  no,  121,  126, 

147. 
Alexander,  rhetorician,  53. 
Alexander,  sophist,  176. 
Anaxagoras,  84. 
Anaximenes,  45  ff. 
Andocides,  105  ff.,  140,  repetition  in, 

142,  146. 
Antiochus,  176. 
Antiphon,   8,    13    ff.,  his   treatise   on 

rhetoric,   22,   76,   78,    102   ff.,   his 

practice,   106,   142. 
Antonius,  58,  152,  153. 
Antony,  162. 
Appius  Claudius,  148. 
Apuleius,  173   ff. 
Archilochus,  73. 
Archinus,   143. 
Archon  Polemarchus,  no. 
Argentarius,  172. 
Aristides,  Aelius,   179. 
Aristides,  rhetorician,  51. 
Aristides,  orator,  78. 
Aristippus,  174,  quoted  by  Apuleius. 
Aristocles,  176. 
Aristophanes,  71. 


Aristotle,    8,    ascribes    the    discovery 

of  rhetoric  to  Empedocles,  13,  16, 
26,  42  ff,,  76,  104,   107,  109,  no, 

124. 
Arrian,   178. 
Art  of  rhetoric,  7,  traced  back  to  pre- 

Homeric  times. 
Asconius  Pedianus,  158,  160. 
Aspasia,  84. 

Attic  Orators,  93  ff.,  their  speeches. 
Atticus,  163. 

auT0oxe8idt£iv,  23,  n.  85. 
Blass,  16,  23,  95,  142,  144,  146. 
Caepio,  Quintus,  154. 
Caesar,  Augustus,  pp.  165-166,  not  an 

extemporary  speaker. 
Caesar,  Julius,  165. 
Caesar,  Lucius,  165. 
Caligula,  168. 
Callinus,  73. 
Callisthenes,  147. 
Cannutius,  Publius,  154. 
Cato,  the  Elder,  148  ff. 
Cato,  the  Younger,  152. 
Cicero,   16,  54  ff-,  59,  65,  71,  74,  75, 

^^,  79,  80,  83,  86,  88,  89,  90,  91, 

107,  133,  147,  148,  150,   152,   154, 

155,  156,  157,  158  ff. 
Cimon,  76,  ^^. 
Claudius,  167,  168. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  142. 
Clodius,  Sextus,  162, 
Commonplaces,  16,  95,  in,  136,  139, 

141. 
Corax,  8  ff.,  his  art  of  rhetoric,  its 

divisions;  13,  75,  99. 
Cotta,  C.  Aurelius,  154,  155. 
Crassus,  54,  152,  153,  I54- 
Critias,  90. 
Cynics,    178. 
Demades,  125,  133. 
Demetrius  of  Phalerum,  44. 


l82 


EXTEMPORARY    SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 


Demosthenes,  41,  48  ff.,  refused  to 
speak  extempore,  49,  51,  53,  85, 
89,  92,  93,  95,  122  ff.,  133,  134, 
138,  144  ff-,  146,  147,  176. 

bmUlig,  178. 

Diana,  Aristides'  speech  in  honor  of, 
179. 

SittTQi  pai,  178. 

Dinarchus,  138,  146. 

Dio  Chrysostom,  178. 

Diodorus,  102,  iii. 

Diogenes  Laertius,  11. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  iii,  121, 
122,  124,  132,  141. 

Dionysius  of  Syracuse,  iii. 

Domitian,  170. 

Domitius,  Cn.,  154. 

Display  speeches,  96. 

Eckert,  110. 

Empedocles,  said  to  be  the  discov- 
erer of   rhetoric,  8. 

Epicles,   131. 

Epictetus,  178. 

Eratosthenes,   109. 

Eudocia  Augusta,  81,  109. 

Eupolis,  71. 

Euripides,  50,  51. 

Eurypon,  146. 

Extemporary  speech,  7,  10,  12,  15, 
18,  23,  27  ff.,  45,  47  ff.,  49  ff.,  52, 
53,  54  ff.,  66  ff. 

Fabius  Maximus,  150. 

Fronto,  69. 

Funeral  Orations,  109,  150. 

Galba,  Emperor,  169. 

Galba,  Servius  Sulpicius,  150,  151, 
152. 

Gorgias,  11  ff.,  14,  i6,  27,  28,  37,  42, 
95,  98  ff.,  116,   136,   143- 

Gracchus,  C,  152. 

Gregory  of  Corinth,  50  ff.,  comments 
on  Hermogenes. 

Grote,   III,  133. 

Harpalus,  the  affair  of,  139. 

Harpocration,  109,  142. 

Haterius,  172. 


Heraclides,  176. 

Hermippus,  122. 

Hermogenes,    14,    49,    advocates    ad- 
mission of  preparation. 

Herodes  Atticus,   176. 

H,erodotus,  77,  93. 

Hieron  of  Syracuse,  78. 

Hieronymus,   116. 

Himerius,  92,  179. 

Hippias  of  Elis,  175. 

Hippodromus,  176. 

Homer,  7,  8,  51,  70,  71,  72. 

Horace,  advocates  constant  care  and 
correction,  58. 

Hortensius,  155  ff. 

Hyperides,  133,  138. 

Isaeus,   Attic   Orator,    122,    123,    144, 
145,  146. 

Isaeus,  sophist,  175. 

Isocrates,  22   ff.,   27,  28,  36,   37,   38, 
41,  42,  74,  no,  112  ff.,  122,  123, 
132,  141,  142,  143,  144- 
Jebb,  79,  no,  in,  142. 
Julian,  180. 
Kleon  of  Halicarnassus,  writes  Ly- 

sander's  speech,  146. 
Laelius,  150,  151. 
Lakratides,  147. 
Lamachus,  126. 
Le  Beau,  no. 
Libanius,  180. 
Livia,  166. 
Lollianus,  175. 

Longinus  (?),  pp.  51-52,  120. 
Lucian,  81,  86,  89,  179. 
Lycurgus,   133,   144,   145. 
Lysander,  146. 

Lysias,   16  ff.,  21,  22,  76,  93,   107  ff., 
112,   122,   140,  141,   142,  143,   144, 
145,  149- 
Macaulay,  112. 
Marcus,  175. 
Maximus  of  Tyre,  179. 
Menelaus,  70. 
Menelaus  of  Marathus,  152. 


INDEX 


183 


Menestheus,    said    to    have    invented 

the  fiixavijtog  ^-oyog,  8,  70. 
Metellus,  162. 
Midias,  48,  89,   128,   145. 
Miiller,   133. 
Musonius  Rufus,   178. 
Navarre,  99. 
Nepos,  78,  149. 
Nero,  168  ff. 
Nestor,  7,  70,  71. 
Nymphidius,  169. 
Odysseus,  7,   70,  71. 
Otho,  169. 
Pater,  173. 
Pausanias,  tt^ 
Pericles,  refuses  to  speak  unprepared, 

48,  71,  76.  n,  78,  79,  79  ff.,  88.  89. 

93,  120,  125. 
Petronius,  69. 
Phidias,  179. 
Philager,    176-177- 
Philip,  119,  121,  126,  132,  133. 
Philostratus,   82,    loi,    121,    136,    138, 

143,  175. 
Phocion,  147. 
Phoenix,  7,  70. 
Photius,  109,   143,   146,   179. 
Pisander,  103. 
Pisistratus,  74. 
Piso,  169. 
Plato,   17  ff.,  42,  83,  84,  85,  86,  96, 

no.  III,  132,  133,  143. 
Pliny  the  Younger,  69,   172-173,   175. 
Plutarch,    47   flf.,    76,    -JT,   81,   82,    83, 

84,   85,  87,  89,   92,   93,    120,    124, 

125,  149,  153,   178. 
Polemo,  175,  177. 
Pollux,  13. 
Pompey,  159. 
Porcius,  Latro,  170  ff. 
Porphyry,   144. 
Prejudice    against    written    speeches, 

22. 
Proaeresius,  176  ff. 
Proclus,    176. 
Prodicus,  115. 


Proems  and  Epilogues,  13,  15,  16,  94, 
140. 

Prometheus  and  Epimetheus,  myth 
of,  96. 

Protagoras,  11,  his  method  of  teach- 
ing, 95  ff. 

Proxenus,  139. 

Pseudo-Plutarch,  78,  79,  81,  82,  85, 
88,  105,  109,  III,  133,  143. 

Pyrrhus,    148. 

Pytheas,  122. 

Quintilian,  37,  54,  58  ff.,  70,  71,  80, 
82,  84,  86,  93,  102,  120,  147,  156, 

159,  163. 

Ready  Speakers,  178. 

Repetition  of  passages,  139  ff. 

Rhetorica  ad  Alexandrum,  46. 

Rhodians,   137. 

Rutilius,   150. 

Saturninus,    Pompeius,   172. 

Satyrius,  11. 

Scipio,   150. 

Scopelian,  175. 

Seneca  the  Elder,  69,  170,  '^l^- 

Seneca  the  Younger,  168,  wrote 
Nero's  speeches. 

Severus,  Cassius,  172. 

Short-hand  writers,  160,  176. 

Socrates,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  96,  108, 
his  defense  by  Lysias. 

Solon,  74. 

Sopater,  82. 

Sparta,  73,  74,  119,  121,  146. 

Speech-writing  no  disgrace,  20. 

Stobaens,    144. 

Stratocles,  146. 

Suidas,  16,  79,  80,  81,  82,  86,  109,  136. 

Sulpicius  Rufus,  154,  155. 

Tacitus,  54,  66  ff.,  praises  extem- 
porary speech,  167,  168,  169. 

Teles,  178. 

Theatetus,  22. 

Thebans  and  Olynthians,  126. 

Theomnestus,  speech  against,  142. 

Themistius,  84,  179,  180. 

Themistocles,  76,  ^^  ff.,  82,  93. 


i84 


EXTEMPORARY   SPEECH    IN    ANTIQUITY 


Theodorus,  107. 

Theon,  53,  the  necessity  of  practice 

in  writing,   109,   143,   145. 
Theophrastus,  'JT,  93,  95. 
Theramenes,  90,  116. 
Theseus,  70. 
Theuth,  myth  of,  19. 
Thompson,  17. 
Thrasybulus,  143, 
Thrasymachus,  his  rhetorical  works, 

13. 
Thucydides,  76,  'JT,  78,  79,  83,  89,  90, 

91,  92,  103,  104,  no,  123. 
Tiberius,  Emperor,  166-167,  168. 
Tiberius,   rhetorician,  53. 
Timaeus,  120. 


Timotheus,  120. 

Tisias,  9,  13,  16,' 75,  ^,  107,  115. 

Titus,   169,   170. 

Tyrtaeus,   73. 

Valentinius,   169. 

Varro,     Cingonius,     writes     Nymph- 

idius'  speech,   169. 
Verres,  158. 
Vinicius,   172. 
Vitellius,  169. 
Walden,  177. 
Wolf,  F.  A.,  145. 
Writing,  19,  20,  yj,  54  ff. 
Written    discourse    inferior   to    oral, 

20  ff.,  28  ff.,   117  ff. 
Xenophon,    121. 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


YC  01310 
U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDS08ai741 


